Jump to content

Azeraphin

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Azeraphin

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 03/11/1980

Recent Profile Visitors

549 profile views
  1. I do apologize for restarting the age old discussion on whether Star Wars icons should have stats or not. I assure you, that wasn't my intention. I don't think that there is any right or wrong way to portray Darth Vader for anyone's game. I think the only thing that should mater is what fits for your campaign. If you feel that you and your players would benefit more from a fight with such and iconic character if they had stats, then by all means do so, that is your right. If you believe that any encounters with such characters should be the realm of role-playing, not roll-playing, that is also your right. And if you feel that experiences with iconic characters should be somewhere in the middle, then that also is your right. I'm not going to argue my case on why I did Vader the way I did, I just did, and it works for me and my group. But that doesn't mean that it will work for everyone, so do what works for you. If you want to use my Vader wright up for inspiration for your game, then please by all means do so, I would be happy to see someone else either then us give him a whirl. If you don't though, that's fine too, I'm just happy that you gave it a look May the Force be with you all.
  2. Heh, good point, you might be on to something. Honestly forgot about that.
  3. That's a good one 2P51 on of my fav's, also take an idea right out of Episode 7. Finn and Ray meet because of a misunderstanding and ended up working together because of extenuating circumstances. Sometimes the story itself is a good way for players to meet and realize each others worth. It's why a lot of old Dungeon and Dragon campaigns begin with the characters meeting in a bar (honestly wonder were that trope started).
  4. Well ask yourself, how did Jabba handle it when Han Solo dumped his cargo when he was about to be bordered by an Imperial patrol? He placed a huge bounty on his head. Han had Boba Fett, Gredo, and numerous other bounty hunters looking to capture him and get the bounty just because he dumped Jabba's cargo. Hutts and Valarian hate it when people who promise to do them a job renege on it. Hutts and Valarian are ruthless and corrupt. If your PC's steal that water and/or don't bring that ship to Valarian, things are going to get bad for them in the near future. But hey, that makes for a really interesting campaign side story.
  5. I agree whole heartedly, how one chooses to portray Vader and other Iconic villains is indeed dependent on both a GM's and his/her players play style. With a little roleplaying tweaking to my rules Vader can be dealt with in a more permanent fashion. An option I used to make an encounter with Vader sway into the players favor, is since Vader's tactics change based on the Destiny pools Light side or Dark side consistency. I introduced a roleplaying mechanic for just such encounters that allows players to increase the Light side amount of the pool through good and creative roleplaying, (say trying to appeal to Vader's old but still existent familial feelings, or even lead him into a well designed trap that employees allies and well placed defenses and tricks), and once the Destiny pool is made entirely of the Light side I had something really good happened which resulted in Vader being defeated and having to retreat. To be fair I also changed my rules slightly and made it that any time the resisting player rolled a Triumph it flipped a Dark side Destiny to the Light side, instead of only if they rolled two Triumphs, this made the situation escalate more into the players favor. Your right Vader is Human, which means he's not invincible, but he should be taken down creatively and with considerable well thought out effort. Vader's not and idiot nor a fool, many people have tried to kill him and yet he is still standing, only someone (or someones) of considerable worth and heroism are going to have a chance of bringing him down. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe my Vader will work for everyone nor every encounter, but he might work for someone and that's alright by me .
  6. Go ahead man, I'm happy you like it
  7. I respect what your saying, and I don't think your wrong about the PC's actions having meaning, both thematically and mechanically, but I have lost faith in Chance as an ally. Chance has burned me too many times to count, I can't even remember anymore how many bodies are strewn along the trail of campaign villains that have died early in a campaign due to chance. Don't get me wrong I want my players to win (and they often do), I would just like it if it didn't feel like I wasted my time on what was supposed to be a campaign reaching villain and turned out to be a speed bump. And I'm sorry, but I refuse to let Vader go down like a chump.
  8. Hmm, nothing is more frustrating then when a villain you have been threatening and playing up from the beginning of a campaign is one shot killed due to a really good roll by a PC. I enjoy creativity from my players and I definitely think that if they came up with an interesting way to defeat a villain they should have a chance. But i firmly believe that some villains should be almost insurmountable, inspire fear and despair when they appear. How would the Star Wars movies be if Darth Vader was killed by Luke on Bespin because he got a lucky lightsaber swing. I mean it was the GM's fault that Boba Fett died like a punk, that's what you get when you stat Iconic characters I get what your saying Stan Fresh, but I personally like Villains that inspire terror and fear, and that no amount of damage and good rolling you do will take them down, but can be defeated by creative thinking coupled with good roleplaying. I've always felt stating big villains leaves to much to chance, and to a GM chance is the enemy of a good villain.
  9. Years of experience has taught me that stating Iconic villains and heroes and putting them in the same location as the players pretty much guarantees their being killed when they shouldn't be, even if the odds are in their favor (all it takes is a really good roll, and players do that a lot), save of course when a GM Deus Ex Machina's them, but that feels wrong to me.
  10. I remember reading somewhere an official version of Darth Vader that went something like 'Darth Vader has Two maneuvers, if at the end of his second maneuver he is engaged with a player character, that player is captured. If they Resist, they die.' This honestly interested me as it felt thematic and true to Vader as he is seen in the movies. Though I liked this I felt that it could be more interesting, so I modified it for my game. In my game what Darth Vader does is based on how many light side or dark side destiny is currently in the pool, and works like this. Darth Vader has two maneuvers, if at the end of his second maneuver he is engaged with a player character and there is more light side destiny in the destiny pool then dark side, that player is captured unless they resist. If that player resists, they flip one light side destiny to the dark side and sustain a critical injury. The resisting player then rolls Two Proficiency die and one Challenge die. If the player rolls a Triumph Vader is distracted for a sort time (a few seconds) allowing the players an attempt to flee. If the player rolls two triumphs, Vader is distracted for longer (a minute at most) and one dark side destiny is flipped to the light side, also all the player characters receive a boost die on all actions taken during the scene that Vader is involved. If the player rolls a Despair, something happens that makes fleeing from the scene harder (stormtroopers show up or some-such) and the resisting player sustains a second Critical Injury (1d100+10). or; Darth Vader has two maneuvers, if at the end of his second maneuver he is engaged with a player character and there is more dark side destiny in the destiny pool then light side, that player is killed unless they resist. If that player resists, they flip one light side destiny to the dark side and sustain a two critical injury's (one at 1d100 and another at 1d100+55) . The resisting player then rolls one Proficiency die and two Challenge die. If the player rolls a Triumph Vader is distracted for a sort time (a few seconds) allowing the players an attempt to flee. If the player rolls a Despair, something happens that makes fleeing from the scene harder (stormtroopers show up or some-such) and the resisting player sustains a third Critical Injury (1d100+20). If the player rolls two Despairs, something really bad happens to make it hard to flee the scene, the resisting player sustains a fourth Critical Injury (1d100+30), and a light side destiny is flipped to the dark side. If at any point all destiny are flipped to the dark side during a scene where Vader is involved something really tragic happens (friend encased in carbonite, loss a hand, fleet destroys your base and so on). It has worked well so far and it has really made encounters with Vader interesting. Any ideas on other Iconic characters?
  11. GroggyGolem and Desslok I completely agree with both of you, Critical Injuries are indeed actual body damage where as Wound Threshold is your characters endurance or fatigue. Not arguing that, just my gripe with the way the system deals with damage mitigation. Also, love the Raiders reference, great movie, even if it would have came to the same outcome regardless if Indiana was present or not . Think about it and have your mind blowen.
  12. While I agree in the right circumstances Autofire would scale more towards the more powerful end, though to be fair Autofire was always a powerful trait to have on a weapon, with damage being halved this should keep Autofire mostly in line. Realistically anyone who stands out in the middle of a firefight when Autofire weapons are being used against them deserves to suffer the consequences. As for Reflect and Parry, I can't really argue with you, but this idea is partly to move those two abilities inline with what we see in the movies, I mean anyone else remember Qui'gon and Obi-wan on the trade federation ship being fired at by the destroyer droid and reflecting everything coming at them? Honestly I feel it brings Soak on armor right in line with what it should be, Armor. In several other role-playing games (not all mind you) armor is a form of damage reducer, and it didn't cost more because it did what it is supposed to do. What with the Soak values of most armors being 1 and 2 and with Superior 2 or 3 this means a standard blaster rifle (which by this HR will now do 6 damage on a success) will still do 5 - 3 damage on a hit, and a heavy plaster pistol will 3 - 1 damage (in all honesty these seem consistent with what they are doing before this HR). As for the idea that it makes Brawn a useless stat, okay now that's a bit of a stretch. Sorry but even if we remove Brawn from Soak, Brawn is used for deriving you Wound Threshold, your Melee and Unarmed damage, and your Brawn skills, not to mention how much weight you can actually carry, with the sole exception of Willpower which is used for Willpower skills and Strain Threshold, Brawn is the most used stat. This is actually part of the problem I speak of about Brawn adding to Soak. Pierce isn't something that every player or enemy should have to have in order to have a hope of damaging there opponent. Now I know I'm being hyperbolic when I say 'Every player or enemy' but in my group there is a single player whose Soak value is so high due to Brawn, armor, and talents that a standard blaster rifle on 3 success can't harm her, that's 12 points of damage totally ignored. True this is only one player, but when I have to make situations that can be challenging for her combat wise (because she loves to fight) these same enemies wreck everyone else. Now true I do place them in many other situations where her extreme tankiness aren't a big issue, but on the few occasions that it is, you can clearly see the other players grow worried for their lives (heh). Honestly though SEApocalypse I agree with most of what you have to say, and yeah it definitely needs to be play tested, might just do that this weekend with my players (poor saps ). Thanks for your input, I greatly appreciate it.
  13. I'm usually not one to employee house rules, but I just had to see what people thought about this one. I'm aware that some people aren't particularly keen on Brawn adding to Soak values, and that there has been many people talking about house rules to remove it from Soak, my idea is almost the same. Remove Brawn from Soak but in order to mitigate how murderous that is for PC's, lets cut personal scale weapon damage in half (rounded up and lets not touch explosive damage, like grenades and missile tubes). This makes melee weapon damage dangerous still, but see as you have too run through weapons fire to get within melee range, that seems fair. How this changes the dynamic of battle though is interesting. First it still allows those who focus elusively on Soak value from armor to gain benefit from it, but it also allows other players who want to not wear any to be far less squishy, as they can take a hit or two more (not to mention that this is more true to the movies). Also it allows lightsaber reflect and parry to be more true to their cinematic versions. Lightsabers become less likely to perform a one hit kill in most circumstances, while allowing grenades, thermo-detonators, and missile tubes to be the top of the food chain again. Just an idea, I'm curious about what you all think.
  14. I think the biggest problem I have with that house rule is how it interacts with the squadron rules. If you could reduce the hit to 0 consistently by taking the hit on your own X-Wing, why would you ever pass the hit off to your squadron? Then you have an undying squadron of X-Wings that can fire back whenever you roll a Triumph. It's not at all similar to the combat shown in Star Wars... Most of the squadrons get wasted in every battle. The heroes only survive because they have, essentially, a meat shield of minions around them, just like how the squadron rules work. Though I do agree with you in regards to squadron rules, my group has never really played around with them (seeing as which we only have one ship) so though it could create some issues with games that do, ours should be fine.
  15. Thank you for this Jareth, this was exactly the kind of rule I was planning to utilize in order to act as a means of appeasement to my player. This fits the necessary requirements for making starship combat resemble what has been seen in the movies, while not overly changing or breaking the rules of the current system. I like it.
×
×
  • Create New...