Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Smeeg699

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Most of their stuff is out of print right now because of what seems to be the company getting prepped to be sold. It has definitely made getting a hold of books (and dice) challenging. I can't find anything announcing an actual sale yet, but with them announcing that they're discontinuing RPG development it seems likely... Hopefully they'll change their minds, or at least go back to printing their already published material.
  2. Again, I think that there needs to be a fine like between doing something badass and heroic, and doing something stupid. In my example I gave the players an objective, they took the stupidest route to get there, I'm not going to pull punches from them. In the case of the "death defying leap from the train" scenario, it would HIGHLY depend on how it was RP'd for me. If the players weren't being stupid, I'm not likely going to kill them just because of a single bad dice roll. I will cause hardship. Failures could result in dropping something over the edge, Despairs might cause a scenario where the character falls, but gets snagged on something and the party has (random number here) two rounds to get them rescued somehow before they fall to their inevitable death. Or maybe for the Despair the party drops the McGuffin they were trying to retrieve. Or some other potentially (but not necessarily immediately fatal) misfortune should occur. Like other folks have said, it's the "death defying" actions that become stories of legend around a gaming table. So I like to provide them for my players, but I'm not looking to TPK because my dice are hot one night (or their dice suck).
  3. It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end.
  4. Holy quadruple post, Batman (Sentinel Shien/Sentry)!
  5. Looking at some of those prices and seeing "Price: Call for pricing/Leasing" makes me chuckle at how cheap ships are in this system. I'd never really thought about it, honestly. Maybe, that's a whole 'nother wrinkle I need to plan for in my upcoming EotE campaign I'm setting up... Thanks guys, y'all just gave me more work to do.
  6. The reason I'm suggesting lowering it's skills is because Dendros seems to feel that what the player is trying to do is OP. Basically giving himself two full combat turns, though it sounds like his PC is going to be mostly useless until/unless they get a lightsaber, then a turn with a badass droid that. Now, to be fair, he could simply up the ante from the other side and start throwing more NPC enemies at the group, even possibly ones with anti-droid tech once they begin to learn that the PCs are relying on a tricked out droid for their combat capabilities. But my suggestions were ways to implement it that either reduced the power of the droid inherently or that provided adventure hooks and challenges that would then "earn" the PC that piece of amazing loot (droid elimination protocols).
  7. As a thought, too, if he tries to write elimination protocols by himself, limit it to what HIS skills are. It's something akin to the Teaching skill in GURPS, a system I used to play a lot. You could use the skill to help people learn skills you had, but only to the LESSER of your skill in teaching or your skill in whatever you were trying to teach. Take a leaf out of that book and make the skills that he can innately give the droid without access to specialized droid specific programming be the lesser of his Computers skill (for doing the actual programming) or the skill he is trying to impart on the droid.
  8. I had to go look up the rules on droid crafting because of this, so that was enlightening thank you. Now to the point of the post. I like the ideas that Sarg had, namely giving the droid independence. It literally says in the block for Elimination Protocols that the droid becomes a Nemesis NPC, meaning that he doesn't control it anymore, you do. The Leadership check to make it do as he wants sounds legit. But I think my major issue comes from a littler earlier in the process. Namely giving a set of elimination protocols to a simple labor droid chassis. If I was GM I would have likely required a more complex chassis to be used as the basis for what it is in essence an assassin droid. A simple droid chassis designed for menial labor wouldn't have the articulation/coordination required to function efficiently with elimination protocols (downgrade, possibly twice) any combat checks made by a labor chassis used in combat other than due to lack of coordination on the chassis configuration. Basically force the player to use the more expensive, time-consuming construction, and expensive chassis in order to have elimination protocols installed in it. It's like, sure I can install the latest badass gaming software onto a 1990s laptop, but it isn't gonna really do much compared to putting on something designed to run that software. Also, how is he even getting elimination protocol software? I don't imagine that that's something you can buy from Johnny Mechanic down at the market. Nor, imo, would it be something that a character who knows nothing about combat could feasible write on his own. I'd make a task out of even getting the software in the first place (raiding some droid tech corps mainframe system or something like that)... Then again, it's your table, so play it how you want it, but this sounds OP as **** to me and suuuuuuper min-maxy, which irritates the crap out of me as a GM. Thankfully my players don't do this, so it doesn't come up often. EDIT: I forgot to mention that, prior to reading the specific rules I was going to suggest doing something akin to what Starfinder does with it's Engineer class, but with an SWRPG twist. Make the droid a minion with crap skills unless the PC actually controls the droid, using the PCs action/maneuver to give the droid an action or maneuver. However since it specifically states that the droid becomes a Nemesis NPC that was made moot. Still, might be something to that by trying to make a simple labor chassis function as a Nemesis level NPC, but I sorta covered that already, so carry on...
  9. To be a bit pedantic (and drive the point home), he would increase the difficulty of all appropriate checks while utilizing the shield. I wouldn't impose penalties on, say, a Knowledge (Xenology) check to figure out the weakness of the rancor he's facing off against, or even to something like a Resilience check to resist the overpowering stench of the beast. However it would certainly make any Coordination or Athletics checks to evade or escape from the creature more difficult, as well as making it harder to swing that melee weapon he has in his other hand. So some common sense is needed when interpreting "all checks", as others have mentioned.
  10. So before going farther I'm going to say that I haven't fully read this thread, only the first few posts, but something stands out to me. Is it just my interpretation of E&F that when you use it it only applies to SUBSEQUENT rolls of that same skill? So there wouldn't be a point to use E&F on a Draw Closer check unless the person was going to just Draw Closer on their next turn... From the E&F tree out of Disciples of Harmony: "When making a combined Flow power check, the user may spend [light or dark pips] to add [success] to any checks the Force user makes that use the same skill before the end of the user's next turn. The Force user may not activate this multiple times." That phrasing seems, to me at least, to indicate that you're giving using the Force this turn to enhance something next turn. You're flowing the Force forward. Now, be gentle as I'm relatively new to the forums and not up on all the errata or dev comments on things, so please if I'm interpreting this wrongly, be kind but point out how/where I went wrong. Now back to finish reading the thread...
  11. No, see I disagree with this here. I think I'm more in 2P51's camp as well. Especially if it's a situation where the PCs do something blatantly stupid, like charge solo into a squad of storm troopers, or assault an Imp stronghold without any prep work ahead of time. There are some situations where if the PCs are dumb enough to do the suicidal path, you have to let them accept the consequences. Especially if it's a situation where you already laid out the challenges: GM: "You guys have to get into this strongly fortified Imp base and recover data from the main server. How do you proceed?" Players: "We grab our weapons and charge the gate." That's the players asking to die, imo. They knew the odds going into it and if they didn't respect the chance of death, that's on their heads.
  12. While I'm a relative newbie at GM for this system, I have extensive experience with level based systems like D&D/Pathfinder as well as systems like GURPS which do incremental exp like this one does, so here's my take on things. In a similar vein to what SanguineAngel, Donovan, and Frog have said, I award exp based on both tangible and intangible factors. Tangible factors come down to "did they attempt (success or failure) to do X, Y, and/or Z?" Intangible things are harder to define but usually come down to roleplaying. For example of that in a session just this last weekend I had a group of F&D characters get into a combat encounter with some beasties that had been twisted by a dark side vergence. Instead of hacking and slashing (or the lightsaber equivalent thereof) their way through the encounter, the group made an effort to attempt to "heal" the dark side corruption, taking a few nasty wounds in the process. As a result, I awarded bonus xp to them for taking the harder path and playing to their characters ideals. The last thing I consider when giving out exp is, as the previously mentioned three (and others) have said, is how frequently we are meeting and how much progression I want them to see. Right now, we're meeting rather infrequently but I want people to feel character growth. They are also relatively new characters, as opposed to 1000+ xp already, so I adjusted total exp that way. In the end, it boils down to, "award experience as you want to see the group progress as befits the story you want to tell" I suppose. Wish I could be more concrete than that.
  13. I play online with buddies around the country using Discord for voice and Roll20 for the tabletop. Of course, I already use r20 for D&D online, so I'm already paying the subscription so that isn't a concern of mine. The integration is fairly smooth, though I wish that there was a better way to do the talent trees (like having actual talent trees that you could mark the talents you pick up on). Even though you don't need a map to play the game, I tend to do things like load pretty background pictures that can represent the area that my group is adventuring in. I also have a section where I can depict the range bands and players can put tokens on, then move them around as they move in combat. I mostly do that, though, because the players I have are used to D&D style tactical combat and so having a visual representation of things helps to keep them engaged and focused which can be difficult compared to playing in person around a shared table. Just my two credits worth...
  • Create New...