Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FFG_Sam Stewart

Equipment Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

Question on disruptors:  The description of the weapon states that you can vaporize a target by spending 5 advantages.  Cool. But does this count as a "weapon quality"?  It is not listed in the "Special" section of the table, only mentioned in the description of disruptor weapons.

The purpose of this question is to determine if a triumph may be spent to activate the disruptors ability to vaporize a target.  Given how difficult it is to generate 5 advantages, the triumph seems like a much easier way of activating this very devastating result.

Sorry if this was asked and answered elsewhere, I couldn't find it.

 

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been looking at encumbrance for ships. From what I gather this sort of encumbrance is the same as for PCs. Looking at the Ghtroc 720 this mean that is can carry 7 (full) bacta tanks and a dejarik table and its stuffed, sounds sort of good (bacta tanks are big and heavy), at least that haul can pay off and give profit… although if its worth the risk of raiding an imperial medical facility is another matter

On the other hand the 720 can only carry 50 disguise kits OR 11 heavy repeating blasters OR 20 bowcasters, which I find unreasonable for a ship that big… I understand that the encumbrance unit it to simplify weight and cargo space. I can also remember long threads of discussing metric tons vs volume for the older incarnations of the star wars rpg. I do not particularly want to start such a thread, but this encumbrance stuff did make me curious and slightly confused.

I realise that there might be stuff I have overlooked and not understood when it comes to encumbrance, particular in relation to starships. The sidebar on page 171 does suggest that at least capital ships can carry a lot more than listed, although not how much more - but since my players won't ever get their own capital ship or "super"freighter it won't matter what that particular upper limit is. But what is the limit for the Ghtroc 720? Is it 100 encumbrance, plus x for filling passenger quarters if need be… are bowcasters so big and bulky that you cannot fill a Ghtorc with more than 20 of them, or even less in a YT-1300?

On this note I also wondered about the smuggling compartments. Do they add encumbrance, or do they "steal" encumbrance away from the total capacity and hide it so to speak. Wouldn't be a very clever solution, since most custom patrols would have specs and knowledge about capacities… and a YT-1300 with substantially less cargo capacity than it should have, will cause suspicion - beyond the normal: "you look like a scoundrel, you talk like a scoundrel and you smell like a scoundrel. Open your cargo hold!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LethalDose said:

Question on disruptors:  The description of the weapon states that you can vaporize a target by spending 5 advantages.  Cool. But does this count as a "weapon quality"?  It is not listed in the "Special" section of the table, only mentioned in the description of disruptor weapons.

The purpose of this question is to determine if a triumph may be spent to activate the disruptors ability to vaporize a target.  Given how difficult it is to generate 5 advantages, the triumph seems like a much easier way of activating this very devastating result.

Sorry if this was asked and answered elsewhere, I couldn't find it.

 

-WJL

I'd say it's separate, and that you couldn't spend a Triumph to get an insta-death.  A critical hit from these one of these things is nasty enough, since the minimum result is "limb lost" (aka Maimed on the Critical Hit chart on page142) unless the rolled effect is nastier, which given the ranks in Vicious these things have is quite likely.  Just the pistol can rival a lightsaber, having the same base damage, an easy ability to score a critical hit (which as noted is going to automatically outdo what a lightsaber can achieve most of the time), and though the pistol doesn't get to bypass Soak the way a lightsaber can, the pistol can be used from a mild distance and isn't quite as hard to come by.  The rifle takes that up a notch, having a higher base damage, far better range, and an even better chance of scoring a really nasty critical hit.

After seeing a disruptor pistol in action last night during the "veteran character combat test run" my and a few friends ran last night, I'd say disruptor weapons are deadly enough.  Leave the auto-death instances to needing a lot of Advantages.  Which, if you've got a couple boost dice and a couple proficiency dice is not quite as unlikely as you might think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ok, we have built our first characters and found that the starting credits of 500 to be WAY too low.  My Wookie player can't even have a Bowcaster and the cost of cybernetic implants is so high that my Droid Player can't even hope to get any right now, even if he maxes out his Obligation.  Am I missing somthing?  Is there a place for characters to start with equipment based on their starting career?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 nope your all expected to either be unable to do your job or take extra obligation, just be careful ites really easy to break 100 group total obligation at character creation and if you do no PC can spend XP till you lower it, on the upside your a galaxy renown super criminal somehow.

some people love that pc's start super poor, they cite things like firefly and cowboy bebop, yes the stars of those shows are allways poor but they also almost always have the tools they need to do there job, they have there guns, tool kits, med packs, even grenades. they actually get hired because they are desperate for money but have the tools and skills nessesary to succed at dangerous missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Librarian said:

 nope your all expected to either be unable to do your job or take extra obligation, just be careful ites really easy to break 100 group total obligation at character creation and if you do no PC can spend XP till you lower it, on the upside your a galaxy renown super criminal somehow.

some people love that pc's start super poor, they cite things like firefly and cowboy bebop, yes the stars of those shows are allways poor but they also almost always have the tools they need to do there job, they have there guns, tool kits, med packs, even grenades. they actually get hired because they are desperate for money but have the tools and skills nessesary to succed at dangerous missions.

 

this. If it stays the way it is, this is right up top on the list of houserules for my group.

 

Starting cash needs to be more than the cost of a gorram blaster pistol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doctorbadwolf said:

Librarian said:

 

 nope your all expected to either be unable to do your job or take extra obligation, just be careful ites really easy to break 100 group total obligation at character creation and if you do no PC can spend XP till you lower it, on the upside your a galaxy renown super criminal somehow.

some people love that pc's start super poor, they cite things like firefly and cowboy bebop, yes the stars of those shows are allways poor but they also almost always have the tools they need to do there job, they have there guns, tool kits, med packs, even grenades. they actually get hired because they are desperate for money but have the tools and skills nessesary to succed at dangerous missions.

 

 

 

this. If it stays the way it is, this is right up top on the list of houserules for my group.

 

Starting cash needs to be more than the cost of a gorram blaster pistol.

 

So agree with you there!!!  Sam, fix this crap please?!?!?!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Librarian said:

 nope your all expected to either be unable to do your job or take extra obligation, just be careful ites really easy to break 100 group total obligation at character creation and if you do no PC can spend XP till you lower it, on the upside your a galaxy renown super criminal somehow.

some people love that pc's start super poor, they cite things like firefly and cowboy bebop, yes the stars of those shows are allways poor but they also almost always have the tools they need to do there job, they have there guns, tool kits, med packs, even grenades. they actually get hired because they are desperate for money but have the tools and skills nessesary to succed at dangerous missions.

Since you know, a slugthrower, a few grenades, and the cheap armour can't get the job done?

I know its not iconic, but don't say "can't."

 

What are you expecting early players to be up against? Squads of Stormtroopers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit odd to start with 500 credits. This is akin to starting off with 15 GP in D&D. I would rank the D&D Long Sword as the equivalent to the Star Wars Blaster Pistol.  You would be able to buy a Long Sword [1d8 damage] for 15 GP. 

One could say, what’s wrong with a club [1d6 damage] (0 GP), a sling [1d4 damage] (0.05 GP) and a handful of rocks (0 GP)? You would be able to get things done, and have 14.95 GP left.

However, most folks would find it odd as they are used to having 3d6*10 GP to start with. Usually enough to buy a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, some armor, a backpack, and some adventuring gear to place within.

So people are like, what about my 10’ pole? Where is my wineskin? It would be nice to be a fighter with some chainmail . . . nope you got a Long Sword, deal.

If Serenity / Firefly is a template, than we should have a little more gear. I suppose starting characters can go all Ewok up in their grill by buying a camping knife (with the little saw on it), going into the woods, and making a staff or a club out of a small tree. Then buy some leather and string and make a sling, and pick up some rocks. When this is done the character could have money to buy armor and a 10’ foot pole.

EWOKS IN SPACE!

I also find it odd that the 10 XP equivalent is, what, 2,000 credits.  It seems a bit odd is all.  I would think 10,000 so one could buy a cybernetic implant or a droid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two weapons have a range of "Short" - the Ionization Blaster and Slugthrower Pistol, but that range band doesn't exist in personal scale, and I'm assuming they're not supposed to be able to shoot at Starship ranges!

Looking at the weapons, they're probably supposed to be Close, but it does raise another bugbear which I'll point out in the Starships thread…

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gribble said:

 

Two weapons have a range of "Short" - the Ionization Blaster and Slugthrower Pistol, but that range band doesn't exist in personal scale, and I'm assuming they're not supposed to be able to shoot at Starship ranges!

Looking at the weapons, they're probably supposed to be Close, but it does raise another bugbear which I'll point out in the Starships thread…

:)

 

 

 

I am glad that I am not the only one which caught this.  In fact, I have brought up this anomaly in another thread under the Combat section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Leave it to my players to find these loopholes… but they're lawyers, so I guess I can get too mad.

There is no explicit limit to the number of times that a character can gain the encumbrance benefit from backpacks.  The descriptions on these items (pp 118 & 119) need the following, or similar, text added to their descriptions:

"equipping multiple utility belts/backpacks after the first does not confer increased encumbarence rating."

 

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a REAL concern about the power of the auto-fire weapon quality in the RAW.  

I ran a group through the "Crates of Krayts" module provided in the book, and during the final encounter on both sides, auto-fire weapons chewed the $#!^ out of anything they hit with an advantage on the roll.  Even with an additional difficulty die, there are soooo many advantages that tend to get produced, these hits rapidly generate insane damage.

I think the cost to activate the auto-fire quality needs to be increased to 2 adv from just one.

 

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LethalDose said:

 Leave it to my players to find these loopholes… but they're lawyers, so I guess I can get too mad.

There is no explicit limit to the number of times that a character can gain the encumbrance benefit from backpacks.  The descriptions on these items (pp 118 & 119) need the following, or similar, text added to their descriptions:

"equipping multiple utility belts/backpacks after the first does not confer increased encumbarence rating."

 

-WJL

It needs a GM that says 'Put two fully loaded backpacks on, then tell me you arent encumbered.'

No offence, but the GM is there for a reason. If your players are seriously trying to game the system that badly, well, I guess I feel sorry for you.

Space in a rulebook should not be taken up with the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I actually used to carry a backpack on my front and back when I wanted to minimize trips down the pier in my navy days. Load balancing can be significantly advantageous.  Reguardless I don't think this aspect needs focused rules. GM sense ought to be enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

korjik said:

It needs a GM that says 'Put two fully loaded backpacks on, then tell me you arent encumbered.'

No offence, but the GM is there for a reason. If your players are seriously trying to game the system that badly, well, I guess I feel sorry for you.

Space in a rulebook should not be taken up with the obvious.

I agree that there some things that are clear enough that they don't need to be in the book, but I don't think this is one of them.  It's close to the line, but needs to be made explicit.  It's a simple one sentence solution that saves A LOT of GMs saying "no" and prevents a smaller fraction of these GMs from having a 10 min argument with a player about whether or not its allowable when the player brings up something like:

cetiken said:


I actually used to carry a backpack on my front and back when I wanted to minimize trips down the pier in my navy days. Load balancing can be significantly advantageous. 

 

 

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 To be fair I GM more than I play, and my preferred style is "Yes, but…" rather than "No."

Threfore if a player asked I'd probably say they could have two backpacks (since that seems to work for messenger style bags or large purses too) with one utility belt or one backpack with three utility belts (in where I visualize two of the belts acting as bandoleers). Or any other convincing visual the PC's might suggest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The Blast Quality seems wonky to me, anyone else?

The old saying goes, "almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades," but I don't see almost working with the blast quality. Shouldn't it instead be activated on a miss, to cause blast rating damage (with the usual AA cost)? Or spend a number of advantages equal to the blast rating to cause half damage on a miss?

Also, it's completely useless on vehicle-scale weapons! It causes damage to all engaged characters, friend and foe alike. It might be picking nits, but there is no such thing as "engaged" for vehicles.

-EF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EldritchFire said:

Also, it's completely useless on vehicle-scale weapons! It causes damage to all engaged characters, friend and foe alike. It might be picking nits, but there is no such thing as "engaged" for vehicles.

-EF

Well, yes.  But if the vehicle-scale weapon is firing at groups of stormtroopers in close proximity to one-another…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm telling my players not to get too bogged down on starting credits.  If it's a common piece of equipment they could reasonably be expected to have, I'm not sweating it if they don't have the credits for it.  Of course, I plan on sucking up a good portion of their credits on the passage they booked to get them to the start of the sample adventure, but as long as they're not trying to grab the most expensive equipment in the game, I'd rather they be happy with their characters than be accurate with their starting bookkeeping.

Same with encumbrance.  As long as they're not trying to tote a landspeeder around on their backs, I'm just going to handwave it.  I've always preferred common sense when it comes to encumbrance than having to keep track of the weight of every single item.  "Oh, that second medpac you picked up was just enough to encumber you, whereas before you weren't" just doesn't sit right with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About autofire: We played an encounter where a group of Tusken raiders with rifles attacked from atop of a cliff. At medium reange, in cover, one of the characters attacked them with a light repeating blaster. We found that, with some Setback Dice from cover (I used two, one for cover and one for elevation of the target), and with the added Difficulty Die from autofire, it wasn't very easy for the gunner to hit them.

Of course, if the Tusken Raiders were caught in the open by a character with a light repeating blaster, the fight would have been a short one. I think this works quite well.



About the jetpack: I'm not sure if the description of the jetpack is how it's intended to work in the setting. A character cannot maintain constant flight with this, but rather long jumps, short lifts etc. I would suggest that the jetpack rather works with the rules for the Move Maneuver, letting the user ignore obstacles (jumping over), ignore enemy cover (levetating up and shooting over) or close to Engaged quickly (charging into melee with a jetpack jump). This better reflects how it works in the movies, I think.

 

Eirik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EldritchFire said:

 

 The Blast Quality seems wonky to me, anyone else?

The old saying goes, "almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades," but I don't see almost working with the blast quality. Shouldn't it instead be activated on a miss, to cause blast rating damage (with the usual AA cost)? Or spend a number of advantages equal to the blast rating to cause half damage on a miss?

Also, it's completely useless on vehicle-scale weapons! It causes damage to all engaged characters, friend and foe alike. It might be picking nits, but there is no such thing as "engaged" for vehicles.

-EF

 

 

With explosions being tied to advantage there are going to be common scenarios where a player may choose to reduce their strain or push a boost/setback die into the next test…rather than activating Blast.  So grenades and other blast weapons (flame projectors, etc) are now less dangerous for use in tight quarters or a grand melee because you can always choose not to blow up your friends by spending advantage elsewhere.  Sure a GM can step in and rule that this isn't the case and that everyone gets hit…but then what's the point of the Blast special quality?

I think that Blast should be a passive quality.  It should equal the weapon's "base damage" and hit everyone in an engagement with no ifs ands or buts.  With that in mind, grenades, missles and other incendiary/explosive weapons should have their damage and other special abilities adjusted in order to keep these weapons from being instant engagement kills.

Thermal detonators already breach through most personal and some vehicle scale soak.  Do they really need to do 20 points of damage on top, as well as 15 blast?  They might as well be light grenades from Mom and Dad Save the World ("pick me up" would have to be stamped on each one of course).  TD's currently have me concerned over wealthy and well connected black market characters.  All they have to do is make a ranged light attack against their target….and the target will almost assuredly be evaporated…whether or not blast activates.  As the weapon is stated and as Blast works currently, the idea that a character could use a Thermal Detonator to surgically destroy a single participant in combat…is outside the realm of explanation in a contextual narrative sense. 

A weapon feared throughout the galaxy for its destructive potential….kills Moff Jangypants and none of the players fighting him because the character lobbing the device chose to spend his advantage on regaining a couple strain and pushing a boost die into his next pool….*wah wah waaaaaaaa sound*

TLDR; Blast should be passive and hit everyone in an engagement, blast damage should be adjusted accordingly, and thermal detonators need to be modified in some way or they will be the death of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Callidon said:

 Do they really need to do 20 points of damage on top, as well as 15 blast? 

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by this, but I think you may be misinterpreting the blast quality.  The description states:

"If the attack is successful and Blast activates, each character (friend or foe) Engaged with the original target suffers wounds…"

I don't read this to say the target also suffers blast damage, since I don't think the original target qualifies as a "character engaged with the original target".

But yeah, 20 damage plus breach is "bring me my brown pants" kind of scary.  Jabba knew he was in trouble with not-Boushh pulled out a TD.

 

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I worded it funky but I know that the blast isn't added onto the initial damage.  I was coming at it more from a standpoint of, it's already going to do whatever its damage is to virtually anything in the game by way of Breach…having gonzo bonkers damage is just atom-bomb-on-an-ant style overkill.  I don't have my book in front of me, but I don't recall seeing any foes in the back of the book that had wound thresholds that high in addition to massive vehicle level soak.

The thermal detonator needs to be terrifying certainly.  But it's a game changer currently, and with Blast working the way it does…can be used to simply remove a combatant from the chess board like a life line on Who Wants to be a Millionaire…"I'll use my Thermal Detonator Regis."  Maybe there is no way of reworking the thermal detonator without taking the 'He's holding a thermal detonator!" out of it as well.  However, I DO know that they will show up more often than lightsabers and with the output stats that it currently has…it might as well be stated up like Cthulhu "kills X characters per round" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...