Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I get what you're saying, and I appreciate the concern, especially since it evidently did happen. It's still probably just best to roll with it for now, at least for this campaign. I don't have a muti-arm gunslinger, it was just a thought I had when talking to a PC who wanted to put a scatter gun attachment on his... scatter gun. Lots of variety in their equipment. I am well aware of how minion groups work (more so than my players, as they have yet to even consider using squad mechanics when they have a group of soldiers with them. I have faith in them) My grief with the way it works in the books also isn't that "oh, you can't shoot multiple times," I'm no stranger to saying that they fire off multiple shoots, even on a nemesis (IE: if a Sith Lord reflects their attacks but still takes damage, well, how's he gonna reflect it and get hurt if they only fired the one shot? How does a single pistol do anything to a rancor from behind, etc) It's more that, if they just get unlucky enough and roll all advantage in the results, and fail to hit otherwise, well they're gonna feel cheated. Mechanically, I don't think the results are too different from whats in the book, at least not from my own gunslinger experience. On average damage is still doubled (assuming it's just two pistols) and maybe with some change. The worse thing to come out of rolling for every equipped weapon is that it's abit more rolling, but that's not a huge deal for me nor the PC's, especially once the PC gets the hang of it and we can look at it and go "alright, hit, hit, hit, miss, hit, here's the damage on each." Again, I'm no stranger to adding flavor to their attacks, and I don't even care if (as long as they meet the mechanical requirements of having 2 weapons equipped and doing the correct difficulty, etc, etc) if they say the shots came from one single weapon. However, with the way it works in the book, if your primary misses, then your secondary misses by default. Your primary could also hit something, and your secondary not due to a lack of adv. These can, of course, again, be flavored to say differently, but if the pistols are worked VERY differently for specific builds and what not, it'll just upset them that at that point is does become reliant on one of the guns to do its job perfectly so the other can do it at all. I also feel that since it's all reliant on the primary hand, what's the point of putting fancy attachments on both guns? Load up the primary with accuracy mods, auto-advantage, etc. Maybe it also gets utility sometimes, as it's their primary and the go to gun. Meanwhile the secondary, if it's never used for anything but, gets solely damage and pierce modifications. Accuracy wouldn't matter for it, because as long as the primary gets at least 1 Success and 2 advantage in the ends results, that inaccurate Bantha poodoo is still gonna hit them from across the building. That's really just me being worried about min-maxing which isn't a problem for me, but it might be for other people. All that said, I might be missing something again, but this is how the CRB reads: "To make the attack, he performs a combined check. First, the character denotes one weapon as the primary weapon. When making the combined check, he will be attacking with this weapon. He then determines what skills and characteristics he would use when making attacks with his primary weapon, and his secondary weapon (the other weapon he wields). Finally, he determines his target. To assemble the dice pool for this check, the player compares the skills that would be used to make an attack with each weapon, and compares the characteristics that would be used to make an attack with each weapon. He then takes the skill that he has lower ranks in, and the characteristic that he has lower ranks in, and uses this skill and characteristic to assemble his dice pool. It's very possible that the ranks in either the skills or characteristics are equal, in which case he can use either. If both checks would use the same skill or characteristic, he simply uses that skill or characteristic." (Pages 210 and 211 of the EOTE CRB.) So if that's true, any attachments added to either gun that add accuracy, inaccuracy, or automatic results only apply if it's the primary weapon. (Side note: this makes set triggers awful for gunslingers who I would think like the ability to quickdraw and deal alot of damage on the first hit. Sure it's 1 more success, but those 2 threat might render the second weapon useless, and if it's on your secondary, well then you have no success from it, just the base damage and already rolled success.) All of that BS is kinda why I prefer the way I'm doing it. Roll for both shots separately (same difficulty for each, plus any modifiers based on the individual weapons accuracy ratings, and all that), with the second shot still requiring two advantage to fire but not for the primary to hit its target. Based on results you just flavor it then. First shot only had 2 advantage and the second hit? Cool, just that happens. The first shot hits but doesn't generate success, the second weapon then either misses a ton, or the first shot sent the target behind cover for a brief moment, and you were unable to pop off the second weapon effectively. Meanwhile, due to the added difficulty on both attacks it still rewards those who put the xp into the needed skills and talents while making using a single pistol a considerable option in the same the base game does it (by it simply being easier). I understand that I type alot, (I have fun going on rants sometimes) so here's a quick run down of everything. TL:DR, I'm not disagreeing with the quote from you, going off of the games rules, a miss in this scenario is shots from both weapons going wide. But I don't like how in the base game if the primary misses, your secondary doesn't even get a chance to do anything, and it's 100% reliant on your primary to do the work, getting both 1 success for both or just the primary to hit, while still needing the two advantage for the secondary to fire at all in a mechanical sense. All of this is from a mechanical sense. Flavoring, as much as I and my PC's love it, is what it is, and it doesn't give results, and eventually hearing "oh you're secondary does fire... it just misses or gets soaked up..." because of the primariy weapons attack would get old. I currently have a hired gun-last-man-standing-now-a-force-sensitive-lightsaber-wielding-soak-of-10-Zabrak in my party as their main DPS and tank, meanwhile everyone else is a talker, utility, pilot, etc, and tries to stay away from combat for the most part. And I can't say, even with how stupid strong they are sometimes (They one shot an acklay through nothing but luck and alot of ranks in lethal blows). I love it when my players are happy, and more so when they fulfill the rolls they design themselves to fulfill. The session right after that Acklay they got their *** handed to them by a dark sider who was just slightly weaker then them statistically speaking, and only survived when the rest of the party shot the dark sider in the back and forced him to flee. And as a final bit, should they be mopping the floor with what I had preplanned, and it was supposed to be much harder, I see nothing wrong with raising the stakes by changing something, be it reinforcements, using destiny points to do something crazy, etc. As long as it's in the name of fun, and not me fighting my players for the sake of GM S T R O N K, I think it's fine to make sure a fight doesn't end up being underwhelming if I can't afford it to be.
  2. Yea, after re-reading it seems that I've been doing it wrong (a habit and ruling I picked up from the former DM). That said, I think I prefer it the way I'm currently doing it, as I don't think it makes sense for one to not be able to make another attack with their offhand weapon due to their primary missing, I think a raised difficulty and and small advantage price tag on that first attack is enough. While it adds more rolling, it'll make a player feel stronger, they can get better and more devastating results... and it's not something I feel I should change mid-way through the campaign. I like the idea of needing to use the prepare maneuver for any amount of weapons above 2. I also think it's a very good way of keeping that scary 6 pistol Harch (or maybe even 3 rifle, since they could technically do it) build at bay). I also agree with the Guns Blazing rule, though I wonder if maybe it should be ruled that it's a ranked talent in this case? IE: having two ranks of Guns Blazing, and suffering the necessary amount of strain per how much they're doing it, would lower the added difficulty equal to their ranks in GB. Example: They got 4 pistols they want to shoot at something at short range, and two ranks in GB. They suffer 4 strain (2 per each rank they used) and lower the difficulty of the attack by 2 purple (leaving it at 2 purple in total, 1 due to range and the other due to the uncancelled modifier.) Thank you, fella's!
  3. I understand that this exact conversation isn't the topic, but I wanted to comment on it nonetheless. So I ask, why? Why do you have to succeed on the shot previous to hit another shot? Isn't the point of Auto-fire and Linked weapons that you have multiple chances to hit them? Why if someone's using a minigun (say a Z-6) does it matter that the first hit lands? It's raining plasma on them and that's still many more chances to hit. One can very easily rule that they just need to add the extra difficulty (in the case of multiple weapons and auto-fire) and spend two advantage to hit multiple times or the enemy dodges the incoming fire (or they just go flying everywhere). Same applies to Linked, and I actually think it's abit hypocritical to require the first shot to hit in order to even attempt the next for Linked especially. A turbo laser with Linked 1 (with this modifier due to it having two barrels) might hit its first shot, but then miss the second. But if it misses the first shot, then the second shot just doesn't come out or automatically misses? Shouldn't it get a chance, what if the second shot were to hit (meaning it's just the first scenario but flipped). Remember, Linked implies that multiple shots are being fired at once (IE, both barrels of the turbo laser firing. Auto-fire is simply rapid fire, hence the increased difficulty of using it). I get that this is the games ruling, but I just feel that it's not a good ruling and wanted to comment on it since I saw you bring it up.
  4. I'll drop my two cents here. I read the first post and that's about it, as I don't want to go through 41 pages of forums on soak and defense. I should note that these are just my rules and interpretations, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Soak is how burly, fortified, resilence, etc, the person is, and as such, the damage done to a target needs to exceed their soak to inflict any real damage. For narrative purposes, though, taking a blaster shot to the chest in full durasteel is still going to sting badly, at the very least, but no lethal damage would have been done. A failed hit for me more often then not is a miss in my book (though I have exceptions, especially if the target is large.), and a successful hit that doesn't bypass the soak value is a hit that just didn't do enough damage to change anything. Wanted to give a quick example of the exception to, "hitting," on a failed check. If somebody, for whatever reason wanted to take a sniper rifle, and start to fire at the star destroyer sitting in the air at extreme range above the sky scraper they're on, sure they can do it. It'll be a fairly difficult check just due to the distance though, but the target is still technically in range. No way it's getting past the soak/armor though. That's an extreme example, but the same could be applied to many other encounters. I once had my players fight a rancor statue that was possessed by Nightsister magic, and they chose to stay at a fairly close range to it, so it's hard to write it off as them missing the giant beast infront of them with every missed shot due to adversary. Whenever they hit him, but didn't bypass the soak I described how the area that was hit, "quickly turned to stone as it was hit, letting off a few small chunks of dust and a pebble or two before reverting back to flesh." I also would recommend allowing your players to, "hit," on a failed check if only to make them feel better. If your players are unlucky enough and you keep describing how bad they are, well, they're gonna feel bad. Chalk the failure up to their opponents skills, and not the lack of their own. Defense is, depending on the source of it, how quickly the character can react to that type of incoming damage, or how prepared they are equipment wise for said damage (IE: having a reflective material on their armor for ranged defense, or having very thick vambraces for blocking an incoming vibroblade). A failed hit due to defense can be chalked up to the gear or reactions of the target doing their jobs as intended, and a successful hit (that meets soak for the sake of clarity) is simply a hit bypassed these defenses, be it through luck or skill of the attacker. A good example being attacking the neck of a Mandalorian warrior, where there's usually no armor. You could argue then, "why does soak matter then if they hit the soft part, shouldn't soak be on the metal????" and to that I say, "if the attack meets the requirements the target takes damage no matter what, and you're just adding flavor or being narrative at this point.". While I would definitely say soak is much more reliable than defense, I don't think turning defense into more soak is the greatest of ideas for the following reasons: A high soak can quickly become overpowered. Good on your PC's if they're tough as nails and it takes a rancor to deal any damage to them, but it'll make scaling combat encounters for the party as a whole more difficult if their soak isn't similar to one anothers. Adding a Threat can be just as, if not more useful, as adding a Failure to a combat check. Maybe that's the last shot to come out of that gun for the rest of the fight, or the blade just dulled itself on your armor. There are many talents, qualities advantage rewards that are built around ignoring defense or soak, and that would then render those useless, or stronger. An example being pierce/breach: With their 1 defense being turned into soak ontop of the 4 they already had. That turns that armor piercing grenade into a much deadlier foe when defense might have just allowed them to dodge the attack altogether. Another being the party encountering something that should have a 3 in melee defense, but is now turned into soak. Maybe you wanted to encourage your party to stay as far away from it as possible by not touching its ranged defense (though you can still do this by making the adversary pretty scary in terms of its own melee attacks), but you now just make it just as difficult for ranged attackers to hurt it as the melee attackers. This also then makes it harder for the ranged attackers to help the melee attackers by spending three advantage they might not have much use for by negating their defense for the next round. I feel that it removes a characters characteristics (not the mechanical kind, but the narrative kind) and flavoring. Your quick, get in get out, character shouldn't be able to take a hit and brush it off easily, as they aren't burly, they're quick and want to avoid getting hit in the first place.
  5. During my only run as a PC in this system I played your average dual pistol Mandalorian gunslinger, and found the dual wielding mechanic fair and pretty fun: just add another Difficulty (referred to as purple) die to the dice pool, and if you get two advantage, you can make the same difficulty check with your other weapon to essentially double your damage with the risk being that your first shot could do less damage, miss, and or not even allow you to take the second shot. I've since gotten myself stuck as the perma-DM for our games (I don't regret it) and had a recent thought to myself after talking to one of my PC's about how dual wielding works. How would the ruling work if a PC wanted to be a Besalisk, or Force forbid the six armed Harch, gunslinger? I don't think it'd be balanced for anything going against them if the gunslingers modified pool was still just the one purple with the two advantage being needed for the next shot, but if I were to add a purple for every extra weapon then at some point the gunslinger is going to hit everything save for his target. Another related question I'm curious on: Would you consider having multiple weapons on a vehicle (not already linked weapons, like an X-wing's laser cannons) as dual wielding if they wished to shoot, say, lasers and proton torpedoes at the same time? And if so, and if they had about 5 different weapon emplacements, would the same rules apply from Dexter Jettster the gunslinger?
  6. This is pretty much my entire rule of thumb when it comes to languages. If you couldn't tell I like writing, so enjoy all those who read my textbook. If I have a PC who cannot speak basic, I hand wave it and say that all the PC's can understand the one who can't speak basic (unless asked otherwise, and assuming it wouldn't slow the pace of the game or hurt it in general). If a PC joins later into the campaign, and its been established that they only speak in Talz or something the party has failed to understand in the past, I would first off encourage the PC to find a way to make them understandable if you feel that it could be a problem, and if that doesn't work, give the PC's downtime to learn to understand each other (alternatively, in the name of fun, you could just say, "you all understand that language now, don't worry," assuming your PC's won't throw a riot over any inconsistencies). I also tend to allow my PC's to know maybe one or two extra languages based on their backstory though maybe not to their full extent. The gunslinging Devaronian smuggler might know at least a few buzzwords in Huttese from their various smuggling runs, which might just be enough to get by, but not enough to carry a full fledged conversation. On the other hand, the former Nightsister in your party probably understands any Dathomirian chants just perfectly fine having grown up with it. As for NPC interactions, if PC's don't understand the language, then they probably don't understand what the NPC is saying unless they make it very clear what they need. On the flip side, if a PC speaks anything other than basic, well the same rules apply if they don't understand them. I generally rule that most of the more intelligent NPC's have at least a basic understanding of the language, and it's coin toss as to whether or not your common thug will speak Rodian or Jawanese or even binary. If a PC asks, "can I make a check to understand them," and you allow it, I would recommend the following checks. Xenology: Maybe the character has done research on aliens and different cultures for a long time (or simply has been around them enough), and might have a chance at understanding the basics of what another species is saying. Education: I'd use this in the same way Xenology is used, except almost solely for droids. You could probably also use Mechanics or Computers, but I consider those are more "hands on" skills while Education is ones actual knowledge. You could also use this for biological languages as well, but again it's just my preference. Perception: Maybe the characters understand the gestures and non-verbal communication aspects of the person speaking more than their actual words. Or perhaps you smell the pheromones given off by a Zeltron trying to tell you to relax, or notice the fur spiking up on a not-entirely-sober Bothan. Streetwise: Almost the same as Perception, but I would use it more for interactions with the shadier side of the galaxy. Maybe the PC's run into a gang of Nikto thugs speaking in Huttese, and while they can't understand the language, they understand the gestures and hints they're unknowingly giving to the location of their storehouse. Skullduggery: This is also like Streetwise and Perception, more so the former, in which you notice a very specific detail (or details) giving the character key information they need. I'd also rule that Charm, Negotiation, and sometimes Leadership (if they're leading a group of people who can't understand them) could sometimes be used to give off a general idea of what they wanted to say to others, but I'd allow this sparingly, as ones charisma can only go so far when you're speaking to a tribe leader on a backwater planet. And if you do decide to do this, know that a successful check doesn't mean that they then entirely understand the language, rather, they just understand what they were saying in the moment (if you feel like being generous, if they get a handful of triumph then they can understand it just fine, at least for a little bit). Otherwise, I would have them spend in game downtime trying to learn new languages. Huttese and Binary are fairly common in the galaxy, next to basic, or maybe they spend alot of time near the Unknown Regions and knowing just a tad bit of Sy Bisti might be enough to keep the Chiss from blowing them away if they can explain themselves. Despite all of this though, if a character doesn't understand a language, for me that's that, as one can't just make a skill check to speak a language they haven't heard or practiced before, and any check I allow for these is usually because the character making the check has had some sort of experience and knowledge of the language. Lastly, if you ever feel that a PC's language barrier is slowing or otherwise hurting your game, you can always give them some sort of translating device. It could be as simple as attaching a somewhat functioning protocol droid to their back, or as complex and expensive as the helmet seen on Bad Batch member Tech. It also makes for a great reward for a PC to suddenly be able to bypass a major language barrier, so there's that.
  7. The way I handle my XP is I try to give everyone the same amount of XP each session, assuming the player only misses it every once in awhile. If they don't show up for multiple in a row, then I would start taking away XP (maybe down to half of what the others get. My thinking is that if their PC isn't doing anything, they aren't learning much.) but give them the chance to earn some "catch-up points" when they return. Unless they don't return at all, of course. If they continue to not show, but say they will, I would probably eventually decrease the XP to 0. I'm actually dealing with this problem at the moment myself. My party consist of 2 people who are EST (along with myself), 2 people on the American West Coast, and one person in the UK, so time zones suck. I have two players behind me by 3 hours, and another ahead of me by 5. The poor British guy, who I've known for years, can't usually make the sessions even though he tries (I've had to throw his PC into a coma so the other PC's have less of a reason to want to bring him into a fight (and get him killed)). I've steadily been decreasing his XP with each session he doesn't make it, because in reality, you don't learn anything when you're in a coma or otherwise on ice. But, once he returns (and magically awakes from his sleep) I'll probably be awarding him alittle extra XP each session, since the stakes are higher than when he was last awake, which reflects his character learning quickly, and if he RP's exceptionally well, I can throw in abit more. On the other hand, I have alot of players who have inconvenient work schedules, and if they can tell me ahead of time, I'll usually give the party the option of going without the missing player, or waiting until another time. In the event of the former, if they describe what they do in the meantime (assuming the GM doesn't NPC them) then, sure, give them XP all the same. I once had two players missing, and what they did off screen was they went to go find some lodging for the other party members while they searched for their stolen ship (they expected to be there for a few days.) It's really a matter of how frequently are they not showing, and are they really going to show up again, and what type of environment will they find themselves in if they do return. Because of how valuable XP is to this system, you kind of need your players to be on the same general playing field for it to be fair, but I wouldn't reward people for not showing up many times in a row.
  8. So, with my current campaign, my players have essentially started a minor war with a low level crime syndicate. They're about to get a few guys on their side, but no where near the same level of power as the enemy (they won't be making any raids on their main ships or anything like that, at least I hope not). I was thinking that to slow down the pacing, and just to allow them to get more resources (and mainly to have fun) I would throw in a bunch of side quests. Here are some of the things I've come up with that I've remembered. Raiding a derelict imperial cargo ship Defending a village against pirates, raiders, or creatures (because of course) And probably the weirdest one: dealing with a massive overpopulation problem on a world where a bunch of tiny lizard people they freed from a mining operation started working for them. This is on a cold ice planet, but with many heat sources, and the lizards repopulate quickly (and now they don't have any big bad mine guards to keep their population in control). I've had some other ideas, but never got to record them anywhere before I forgot them. Mainly I'm just looking for some ideas that can be related to hindering the other crime syndicates operations in a way that doesn't involve my players laying siege to every building they see. Other outside things are perfectly fine as well, as long as it would be fun for the party (and they're pretty varied skill wise, and have been shown to adapt quickly, so skill restrictions shouldn't be a problem)
  9. Looking at the names, I think Coiled Vipers sparks my fancy, with Syndicate at the end, of course. Thank you for helping my bad writing brain!
  10. I would say keep Defensive and Deflection as is, because Parry and Reflect are (for the most part) meant to be used for force users. Defensive and Deflection can be qualities on certain items (for example, the new Mandalorian shield that came in Fall of Republic) that give the user said defense. Ones a passive benefit, the other is an active action taken by the user.
  11. To get straight into it, I've started GMing a game for my friends and I need help naming the faction that's lead by the current BBEG my players are up against. I feel like every name I'm coming up with with is pretty lack luster, and I wanted some second opinions. The information for the faction is as follows: The group is led by a female Zeltron named Dynni Dor. She's essentially a smuggler baron stated up abit. Dor's goal is to track down a long lost treasure trove that's said to be worth more than that of most other criminal organizations combined. She, of course, plans to use this wealth to take over the criminal underworld, as any self respecting criminal leader would do. As of right now, they're relatively small (maybe only around 600ish personal, and shouldn't get much bigger than that) and have been getting most of their man power by absorbing smaller factions they takes down (one of which the PC's did for them). Dor originally hired the PC's to kill the leader of a rival gang on Nar Shadda, and while they were off doing that she stole their ship. They're using a tatoo Dor has on her arm as their symbol (the one posted) But yea, atm I've just been referring to them as "Dor's Gang" in my notes, and if push comes to shove that's definitely acceptable, but I feel that it could have a better name.
  12. Thank you all! I'm happy that this finally got approved! I've been using heavy pistols skinned as Westars, so that shouldn't be big deal at all for me and the GM to handle.
  13. Hello, Me and my friends have been in the midst of an EOTE campaign off and on for about half a year now. In the current party I'm the only combat-focused character, so I'm constantly looking for new ways to make sure I can protect my group during a fight. My character is currently a Ranged Light based gunslinger (not the actual spec), and while I have a pair of heavy blaster pistols that have torn apart some poor souls stupid enough to threaten my character, I've been in need of a longer ranged option. That said, when I stumbled upon the H9 Grip, and learned that I could just use my light ranged for any heavy weapon that can take it, I was in awe of it. Then I read this part of it: "Ranged (Heavy) blaster rifle, blaster carbine, or slugthrower without Cumbersome." It's likely more up to the GM, but I still figured I'd ask other people who play this game and who likely have a much better understanding than us. The weapon I was looking to put this item on was the disruptor rifle, which has a base Cumbersome rating of 2. The description also mentions it being able to go on slugthrowers without Cumbersome, though the weapon comes with the same rating as the disruptor. I guess my main question is this: can I use an attachment such as the weapon harness (or anything else that lowers the Cumbersome rating of an item enough to 0 or below) to legally attach the H9 to a disruptor rifle? My second question is concerning the fact that it reduces the range of the weapon to medium. Would adding other attachments to the weapon that increase its range cancel this out? Granted, most of these also increase the cumbersome rating, so I would need it lowered further, but is it possible? Third question: Would placing a custom grip on the weapon be possible since this attachment is also a grip, or would they cancel each other out? And final question: One of my other choices for a heavier weapon was going to be the blaster carbine, since it's much, much cheaper, and technically more legal under the law. Since the weapon can already be used one handed, would using the H9 on this weapon still give the the downside of adding one setback for using it one handed? Again, these are questions I will have to ask my GM at some point, but I figured I'd look at what others thought of this in a rules sense. Thank you!
  • Create New...