Jump to content

Smoothjedi

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Smoothjedi

  1. Yeah in fact, I'm pretty sure it says in the rules that you have to specifically choose before you roll whether you want to shoot at one or multiple targets, thus implying that a single target is legal.
  2. Yeah I've never seen this RAW; could you link the clarification?
  3. Yeah, admittedly I can be a min/maxer, but I honestly didn't specifically make the character to break the game, rather to emulate Baze Malbus from Rogue One as I thought he was really cool, especially in the scene where he shot all those troopers around his friend. In fact we were in the early days of the campaign when the movie came out, and before it I specifically didn't make an auto fire character because of the threads on here decrying it, but afterwards I talked to the GM first and went for it after he approved. I like a lot of your ideas! As I am now taking over as GM, to keep the story consistent I'm going to leave my character in the party for a little while until I write him out. I haven't put a significant amount of effort into building the Inquisitor beyond looking through the recommended building blocks, and I like the ability to sacrifice engaged minions to soak ranged attacks. Maybe give it some flair by using move to fling storm troopers perfectly into the path of the incoming shots or something. Those rules say to just pick two, but I'm thinking since he's supposed to be a bigger challenge just picking as many as I want from the list. Do you think staying within the confines of those abilities would be enough to challenge a 700 xp party, or do I need to start adding extra talents from trees as you suggested? I have a lot of experience GMing other games, but only playing this one. It's hard for me to judge right now what challenge is appropriate.
  4. Yeah, and full disclosure my character is the one with auto fire in this scenario. Our party is about 700 xp, and our GM wanted to run a different (5e) game, so I'm taking this one over. I want to take it in a different direction as we haven't really had any pressure from the empire at all for, in my opinion, some pretty blatant force use throughout the campaign. We've mainly been up against hutts, criminals and droids. My dude is an Executioner/Sharpshooter/Gunner with spare clip, true aim x4 and lethal blows with an LBR-9 stun rifle modified with an auto fire attachment so I'm not murdering everyone, but also gives people trying to use reflect a bad day as the extra damage they can't soak goes against their strain instead of wounds. So, I am trying to figure out how to make my own character have a bad day against an Inquisitor, rather than just have him gunned down within a couple rounds of combat.
  5. Although not all of these mechanics are relevant as most of these are energy weapons, I can't imagine there isn't a similar, obvious notification of some sort.
  6. Well, technically we did go way off topic Although I do find it interesting discussing running out of ammo on a despair, the specific question was using that despair for improved reflect. On top of that, as I said earlier, that argument is moot anyway as the shooter has the spare clip talent, forbidding despair from even being used that way anyway. Getting back on track, let's try a different, more specific example of how I think this should work. Assume 3 successes, 2 net advantage, 3 triumphs and 2 despairs are rolled using a crit 3, 10 damage auto fire weapon. If both advantages and one triumph are used to trigger auto fire, then we'll have 3 shots. All these shots would be 16 damage: 10 +3 successes +3 triumphs. The remaining two triumphs could be spent to make two of those three shots crit. Therefore, unlike successes, they are not applied to each automatically or the optimal set up would be shooting 4 shots and having the one triumph left to crit on all 4. My guess here is that despairs would be spent similarly to the critical triumphs in the above scenario rather than working like the successes; they would be spent per shot to reflect damage back. Does this sound right you?
  7. This is a good idea, however the character in question does have the spare clip talent. Although technically this is a hypothetical question, it's a very possible scenario in our next session.
  8. So iterations of this question have been asked before, but parsing through search results didn't find what I was looking for. Assume an autofire attack is rolled against an Inquisitor with improved reflect and enough advantage is present to trigger three shots. If a singe despair is rolled on this attack, is that all that's necessary to allow the Inquisitor to reflect all three shots back at targets of his choice if he spends 9 (3x3) strain to do so?
  9. Yeah, this lies out my original question well. In the multi step process of resolving attacks, spending advantage for crits and activating qualities is in the same step, so it seems plausible at least that damage triggered here could then be used to validate the requirements for a crit, especially given the sidebar saying that stun damage can inflict criticals.
  10. There is a sidebar in the F&D book that says that strain can cause critical hits, page 223. Is this specifically speaking about the Stun Damage quality vs the active quality?
  11. So I was curious about a question someone in our group asked, and I wasn't sure of the answer. Let's say someone is using a weapon that has an active stun quality, such as a shock gauntlet, and makes a successful attack against an opponent inflicting 5 damage. Next let's say the target has a soak of 5+, and no net base damage is done, preventing a Critical hit from being triggered. However, assume the attacker has plenty of advantage to spend. Spending some to activate Stun 3, he causes 3 unsoakable damage to the target. Could he now spend any excess advantage to activate Critical hits? It is in the same step of combat of spending advantage, but it seems pretty strong to basically guarantee the ability to land a crit no matter the soak of the target provided they have enough advantage for both.
  12. You see? You're saving a lot of money on an ambulance ride by not crushing your leg. The system works!
  13. If the ambulance was free, then what incentive would there be for them to not get their leg crushed again? ?
  14. Do you have a page number where it mentions opposed discipline checks only if targeted by a power versus just being affected by one?
  15. So I am considering taking Suppress, and I wanted some clarification on a few questions I have. First off, Range upgrades should just increase the range my allies can be from me to be protected, not range of attackers affected, correct? For example a force user at extreme range should still take penalties when using powers against any of my allies at short range from me. Am I right in this? Second of all, if an adversary wanted to use a force power against me, would they be able to roll an unhindered opposed discipline check to see if they're even affected by Suppress at all before their actual attack? Seems to lose its luster if Suppress just be completely negated by high will/discipline before it does anything, which a lot of the force users seem to have in the book.
  16. Yeah not bad, but still pretty inconvenient if the guy drops it right in the middle of the rest of his team.
  17. Yeah that's what I was referring to. I lent my Keeping the Peace book to one of the other players in my group, but OggDude's Character generator says this in the magnetic weapon tether description (my emphasis): Wielder may recover engaged weapon as incidental. edit: Confirmed. Here's the text from the book: During his turn, the wielder may recover the weapon as an incidental so long as he is engaged with it.
  18. You know what? I didn't even think about using it as an improvised melee weapon, but that's a great point. I could save the hard point in that case for something else. Thanks!
  19. Well we played up to the 540 mark, but we've been alternating between a couple games and it's been a while since we've played this one. Lots of books have come out since then, so we're retooling to take advantage of them. I was less focused on Ranged(Heavy) before, so I'm more concerned now that I'll be more optimized how reactions will be.
  20. My confusion as well. Eventually I will discuss it, but I like to get a good handle on what I think is RAW before I bring it up to him.
  21. I did consider the weapon tether, but the places I've seen in the book where it talks about being disarmed, the weapon can land anywhere in short range, and the tether only works if I'm engaged with the weapon. Not an insurmountable problem of course, but more inconvenient than taking two strain to ignore it.
  22. So I'm considering a 540 xp build with Seeker: Hunter and Executioner, along with Soldier: Sharpshooter to really lay some hurt down with a Ranged(Heavy) blaster rifle. My biggest fear with this build, however, is the guy who jumps into melee range, sunders my weapon or disarms me, and proceeds to hack me to bits. Looking through some options to counter this, I was thinking about eventually buying into Makashi Duelist for Resist Disarm, along with plenty of Parry talents. Could I attach a vibro-bayonet to fulfill the Parry requirement of a melee weapon? Anyone else have some better ideas on how to deal with this threat?
  23. Yeah, pretty ridiculous. Honestly if I was going Magus, I'd go straight dark side picking all those talents up, the Unmatched Destiny signature ability with the Unleashed power upgrade, and fill out the Heal/Harm tree. What difference does it make to take damage then? Just heal them back from all the husks left in my wake! ?
  24. Replying to this to give it a bump as I just found it today and I think it's quite useful. Also, it really opened my eyes up to just how effective talents that give automatic pips, such as Empty Soul in Ascetic, or ones that take them away, such as Calming Aura, are. Especially if fighting primarily Dark Side users, taking one pip away from them, even at a high force rating, is actually quite painful.
×
×
  • Create New...