|
Winson_Paine posted:Another question - it mentions in the box rules that certain weapons "when triggered" do their thing. Say the Brass Knuckles, which are disorient 3. Do I need to DO anything to trigger, or does socking a guy work for triggerin'? Page 31-32 in the Beginner game rulebook has the information. Two advantages or one Triumph can be spent to activate an active weapon quality. Passive weapon qualities don't require activation. So if you connect with the brass knuckles with at least one sucess, to get a hit, and two advantage or a triumph, you can spend two advantage to activate disorient. Looking up the page a little I really think that Soak has to be applied to unarmed attacks that do strain the same as stun weapons, or else things get very unbalanced very quickly and it's all a question of who can throw their blaster away and throw punches the fastest. Edit: beaten
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Sorry, I forgot to look up the unarmed combat rules. In the beta it says if the unarmed attacker decides to do damage to the defender's strain threshold that the damage is still reduced by the defender's soak. The only soak-related errata I can find is that you get to apply your soak individually to each hit if you get nailed with multiple hits in one attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:You have to spend two advantage to trigger stuff like Disorient or Auto-Fire. They cost 2 Advantage unless they specify otherwise. Linked weapons trigger on 1 Advantage, for example. Sunder also costs 1, Guided weapons cost 3, and Blast triggers on a miss if you spend three Advantage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:Sorry, I forgot to look up the unarmed combat rules. In the beta it says if the unarmed attacker decides to do damage to the defender's strain threshold that the damage is still reduced by the defender's soak. The only soak-related errata I can find is that you get to apply your soak individually to each hit if you get nailed with multiple hits in one attack. The errata throws that out entirely about Brawl, and the main book section on soak specifies that strain damage ignores soak except on Stun Setting weapons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
PantsOptional posted:The errata throws that out entirely about Brawl, and the main book section on soak specifies that strain damage ignores soak except on Stun Setting weapons. The errata says that Brawl is used in unarmed combat, and then unarmed combat says it gets soaked. Fantasy Flight is being Fantasy Flight and putting special soak rules in a section separate from the rest of them. Check page 137. edit: 
long-ass nips Diane fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Feb 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Can a brawling wookie do real damage? Or would he be limited to strain? What I am getting at is would a wookie marauder be able to tear his enemies' limbs off?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Can a brawling wookie do real damage? Or would he be limited to strain? What I am getting at is would a wookie marauder be able to tear his enemies' limbs off? You are kinda fixated on limb tearing, but as per the basic boxed set brawl damage does wound or strain at the discretion of the puncher. I dunno what it will look like in the final version. The wookie pregen is a loving beast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
And again, wound vs. strain doesn't matter for all bad guys -- all but Nemeses feel strain as wounds anyway. So a wookiee would be able to "disarm" all sorts of guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:The errata says that Brawl is used in unarmed combat, and then unarmed combat says it gets soaked. Fantasy Flight is being Fantasy Flight and putting special soak rules in a section separate from the rest of them. Check page 137. ... I swear to God, FFG, this is why I drink. That would've been a really great sentence to put in three pages earlier where it specifically calls out exceptions to strain damage ignoring soak. My hat is off to you, Swagger Dagger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
I haven't opened up the Beginner Box, but how hard is it to run the games for three people instead of four?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Quick rules clarification. Can you only spend advantage on a hit? For instance in Winson's PBP i made a brawl check that was three advantage but 1 failure. I want to spend advantage even though it a failure, but i dont know if i can. Are advantages useless on a failure?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
You can spend advantage regardless of the success or failure of an action, now that I'm rereading that section. So, for example, if you have those brass knuckles, you could spend your advantage to disorient your target even though you're not able to do any damage to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Edit: or that ^^ I'm pretty sure you can use advantage either way. I think people were referring to needing a hit to trigger weapon abilities like disorient, in addition to spending advantage to use the ability. Like you get two advantage and hit, you can spend two advantage to disorient. If you get two advantage and no hit, you can't disorient since you have to hit with the weapon to use it, but you can spend advantage on other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
K thanks. Yea my character was going to attempt with the 3 advantages he had to disarm the opponent since he doesn't particularly want to be shot in the head.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Lunatic Pathos posted:Like you get two advantage and hit, you can spend two advantage to disorient. If you get two advantage and no hit, you can't disorient since you have to hit with the weapon to use it, but you can spend advantage on other stuff. Yeah, this is what I thought initially, but it turns out that the only weapon thing that has to be activated on a successful hit is a critical hit, which makes sense. This rulebook really, really, really needs a shitload of rules condensing, there are a ton of topics that are split up among two or three sections of the book and it's a total pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
You can also spend advantage on a failed attack roll to do things like recover strain, grant Boost dice to allies, and grant Setback dice to enemies among other things. The same is true with Threat, which works kind of in the opposite direction. Your GM might use Threat from a combat roll tom impose strain, impose penalties on yourself and your allies, make you drop your weapon, or other nasty biz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
LumberingTroll posted:http://www.warpathgames.com/wholesale/warpath.php?m=detail&p=91575 From the announcement page: "The Star Wars®: Edge of the Empire™ Game Master’s Kit includes a GM screen that keeps a host of useful pieces of information right at the GM’s fingertips during gaming sessions. The GM Kit also provides useful information about developing your campaign to challenge your players with worthy nemeses, and it includes another complete adventure to carry players beyond the events of the adventure in the Core Rulebook."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Possibly absurdly dumb question: when calculating damage, do you deal additional damage for every uncancelled success, or for every additional uncancelled success? That is to say, with 3 successes and 5 base damage, am I dealing 7 damage or 8 damage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
PantsOptional posted:Possibly absurdly dumb question: when calculating damage, do you deal additional damage for every uncancelled success, or for every additional uncancelled success? That is to say, with 3 successes and 5 base damage, am I dealing 7 damage or 8 damage? My understanding is that it's 7 -- the first uncancelled success makes it a success for 5 damage, and then you have two more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
PantsOptional posted:Possibly absurdly dumb question: when calculating damage, do you deal additional damage for every uncancelled success, or for every additional uncancelled success? That is to say, with 3 successes and 5 base damage, am I dealing 7 damage or 8 damage? Ugh, my players argued about this one for a while. I'd say 7 like ^ says. It doesn't make any sense to have to add an additional +1 for every weapon when considering damage. "So the light blaster pistol does 7 damage but 8 when you actually hit with it!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah, that's how my group are playing it. We got halfway through our first session before someone tried to get the extra dmg point out of successfully hitting the target. Thankfully everyone else looked at him like he was the worlds biggest idiot and he aborted the argument halfway through his second sentence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
The folios say "+1 damage per Success rolled", but they abbreviate and probably shouldn't there. The Beginner Book itself says that it's +1 per remaining Success after the initial Success is calculated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
The main book hasn't even be out yet and we have to consult alternative sources like a case study. I love gaming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
I have been doing it as +1 for every success, which effectively gives everything another damage. I can see either way, really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it's +1 for every degree of success above your initial strike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Having played the game, one of my players wants to know what prevents the following situation: 1. NPC attacks a player, GM spends a force point to boost it. 2. Player immediately spends a force point to penalise the attack roll, negating the point of using the force point in the first place. Each side can only use one force point per action, so as long as you've got one force point on your side you can still protect yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Nothing, if you hate playing games. RAW, it's possible, but it's stupid. In my Long Arm of the Hutt game, my players started doing that in response to every boost I did. Then they'd boost every attack or skill they'd try, and I'd counter to keep them from outright succeeding everything they did. It got absurd pretty quick. We finally made an agreement to just use them when we thought it would be thematically appropriate - the whole dice system is based around story-telling and exemplary things happening (good and bad) while trying to do wacky poo poo, so using the Force Points as free boosts/penalties goes against the spirit of the game anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Gort posted:Having played the game, one of my players wants to know what prevents the following situation: Boredom prevents it. That is completely unexciting. If you absolutely have to counter force point usage, it's much more interesting to do it in a way that alters the stakes rather than simply undoing what your opponent did. NPC raised an Ability die to a Proficiency and you want to interfere with that? Raise one of his Difficulty dice to a Challenge and up the stakes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
PantsOptional posted:Possibly absurdly dumb question: when calculating damage, do you deal additional damage for every uncancelled success, or for every additional uncancelled success? That is to say, with 3 successes and 5 base damage, am I dealing 7 damage or 8 damage? Per the lead developer on D20 Radio's Order 66 podcast (1st ep I think), you would deal 8 damage, as it counts every success die, including the one that triggers success. Hence if you had 2 failures, and 4 successes, you'd deal 2 additional damage. As for the force point trading that might occur, I'd suggest talking to your players about it. Try to explain that it defeats the whole purpose of the force points. Failing that you could rule that only one point should be used per action. I think they go over that on either the first or second episode as well of the podcast as well. Force points are much better when players use them for neat effects: using one to say there's a switch on a wall that closes a door, using one to find a keycard on the ground that opens a nearby door that you can duck into, using one to say that a garbage speeder is going by right under the ledge that you've just fallen off of, etc. I'm very tempted to use this system to do a Mass Effect campaign. Everything in it seems to fit really well, with the only issue being converting the force to biotics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
holy moly, Roll20 is adding build your own dice support  This game just became possible outside of Maptools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
alg posted:holy moly, Roll20 is adding build your own dice support Can you link? Usually get emails about new features and I haven't gotten one. EDIT: NM its in Roll20 Podcast, update should be the 18th. Rugpisser fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
The corebook is up for preoder on CoolStuff, for about $20 off list price if anyone is interested in that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
I ran this last night. Did a custom one-shot loosely based on stealing a spaceship, but with a much different setup than the one in the beginner box. Had a fair bit of positive feedback about the system itself. Once I got the hang of assembling dice pools, it was fairly smooth to come up with a roll on the fly for whatever my players wanted to do. From a GM perspective out of combat was nice and quick and organic, but combat did slow things quite a bit. Part of the reason is there are so many more stats to look up or keep track of in combat. Weapon stats and abilities in particular. Still fairly fast compared to, say, D&D. The main complaint players had after the session, and something I agree with upon reflection, was basically a systems mastery complaint. If you look at how dicepools are assembled, an absolutely massive portion of your chance of success comes from your characteristics. Training in skills can't really make up for this, at character creation anyway, and when you consider that most checks will be Average difficulty and most characteristics they didn't build for will be 2, it means you feel like your character is good at one thing only, or maybe two things, and awful at everything else. You can really feel this once you hit opposed checks, when you pit characters who have one specialty against NPCs who have another. That wouldn't really be a huge problem, except characteristics are not created equal. In particular, Willpower and Brawn kind of suck in their versatility. And yes, I know those are the stats used to determine how tough you are. But the number of skills each stat gets, how versatile those skills are, and whether they're used mainly actively or reactively, leaves some characters behind. Here's an example: Let's say you want to be a tough guy. You need at least either Agility 3 or Brawn 3 for ranged or melee, possibly even both. But you will suck at Coerce against some opponents, since Coerce keys off of Willpower and is opposed, even though one would think as a tough guy you'd be somewhat intimidating. The most you can get out of looking like you can snap someone's neck with your bare hands would be a Boost die. If you build for, say, Agility and Will, then you'll be ok at putting a blaster to someone's head, but your character can't trick their way out of a paper bag, since again, Deceit is opposed and you'll have at most 2 Cunning. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it makes opposed checks kind of feel like you rely completely on whoever in the party focused on each stat. And that brings me back to how many tricks each stat has, which for some like Int, Cunning, or Presence is "a lot" and for others like Brawn or Will is "barely any" I guess maybe it's a roleplaying game problem more than specific to this system, but the difficulty of opposed checks really hammers it home. And in a more narrative system like this one, having pigeonholed party roles doesn't mesh very well, compared to crunchier or more combat-focused systems. Don't get me wrong, I really liked the system overall and I think my players did too. We just had the one minor nitpick, and part of it is probably me getting used to how to come up with difficulties, setbacks, and stat out appropriate enemies. The beta book + errata doesn't have guidelines for difficulty of adversaries, so I kind of have to play it by ear and it turns out the stats of your adversaries reflects into the difficulty of your opposed checks, which is a huge part of the overall difficulty of any session. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:This isn't necessarily a problem, but it makes opposed checks kind of feel like you rely completely on whoever in the party focused on each stat. And that brings me back to how many tricks each stat has, which for some like Int, Cunning, or Presence is "a lot" and for others like Brawn or Will is "barely any" I think that you're right about it being a RPG problem. In games where magic or technology is A Thing, you either need to limit that thing to be about as good as physical skill (not going to happen in Star Wars because the Force and the Death Star), boost physical effectiveness to par with technology or magic (not going to happen in Star Wars because of the same things), or shrug and say "don't be a musclethug in the game" (which is totally Star Wars -- the strongest character is probably Chewbacca, and I don't think he ever accomplished anything by strength in the movies, right?).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
The thing is, being a musclethug is totally necessary, because the other half of Star Wars is murdering henchmen / bounty hunters / stormtroopers / rebel scum. So you do absolutely need a few people who can shoot a blaster or gut someone in your party. It's just something about the system either exacerbates or highlights the usual RPG role pigeonholing problems. A change like being able to use one of two characteristics for certain skills would go a long way to either alleviating or hiding that. Maybe I've just been playing too much Dungeon World...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
I was in The Demon's game last night. A glaring flaw in having designed my character, was i had dumped into agility, and not much else. Makes for a kick rear end pilot, and ranged Light person. Makes for HORRIBLE everything else. At the end of the night, i ended up bringing my character back to creation, cause other than shooting and sneaking, i literally had a lemon of a character. Characteristics are so god drat important in this game, that I almost see putting stuff into skills as unnecessary. You could dump 30-40 XP into getting some proficiency dice, OR you could raise a stat and get that entire set of skills up to a higher amount of dice. For a human starting out, its almost more worth it to dump 90 points into getting 3 characteristics to 3, than it is to put anything extra into skills at all. Also, if our combat oriented characters hadn't all taken +10 obligation to get well equipped with gear, im pretty sure we would all have died. The armor we were able to buy, as well as superior weapons were the only way were were even remotely able to attempt to steal a ship. Like i get that you are supposed to start with the clothes on your back and a blaster... but that leaves very little you are able to accomplish combat wise without getting shot to death. I dont know if that is the intention of the system or not. If it is, then this is a system i wouldn't get attached to a character in.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Hmm you guys are taking into account that you take the larger of the two dice pools first as your ability die and then upgrading them based on the lower of the two right? This means that even if you have a low characteristic in presence, you can still dump points into coercion and have a decent dice pool. I believe that the rules also emphasize that at character creation you should put the majority of your experience into your characteristics as its the only time you can upgrade them outside of character creation and a few talents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Cover is so very important in combat, as is the use of destiny points and the imposition of setback dice through spending Advantage. I've been forced into two fights now where I couldn't reasonably get cover and the only way I survived was through judicious use of stimpacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Looselybased posted:Hmm you guys are taking into account that you take the larger of the two dice pools first as your ability die and then upgrading them based on the lower of the two right? This means that even if you have a low characteristic in presence, you can still dump points into coercion and have a decent dice pool. Yup. And at character creation you are limited to two proficiency in a skill, so no one can take advantage of that to obtain more dice than the difficulty of an average check. Past char creation, each skill to 3+ costs you at minimum 15 points, which is the average exp of a session by the book. The system math works out once your characters are more experienced. At creation, it's a little iffy. e: Cover is definitely something that both I and my players missed out on a fair bit in the mess of using a new system for the first time. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
From over on the FFG forums:quote:It depends. People with more time to spend on the statistics than I have claimed that adding an Ability die is better than upgrading to a Proficiency die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 16:57
|
|