| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
Feedback on the rules for the Edge of the Empire Beta
| Page 17 of 17 (250 messages) | « First page... 14 15 16 17 |
Voice said:
LethalDose said:
Bones1968 said:
Idea: No extra difficulty die and always effects all targets in an engagement (friend of foe). Start with low damage (like 8). Each extra success does +2 damage to one target in the engagement. Critical hits or other affects from advantages effect one target hit of players choice. You may spend an advantage to cause one target to upgrade the difficulty of attacks made next round by one due to suppressive fire. Advantages can activate suppresive fire even on a miss.
I would worry that your recommendation, while valid, doesn't fit with what the devs have recently said about AF:
FFG_Sam Stewart said:
Autofire is supposed to be good, and we don't want to limit it or complicate it to the point where it becomes a hindrance or an otherwise worthless investment.
(emphasis THEIRS, not mine)
I'd be concerned the devs would find your recommendation both complicated and not worthwhile. Further, I think you've reiterated some ideas that don't work well and were responded to in the equipment thread.
Suppression always gets mentioned. Because of how suppressive fire works, I think it should be a separate action, not an advantage option. I can't remember if other individuals on the forum agreed with this in multiple previous posts, or if it was from one vocal individual who got banned. It's also something I think belongs in a game with a tactical/strategic focus, like I suspect Age of Rebellion will be.
Finally, one the one hand I would like to see more difficulty upgrades instead of increases, since the upgrade mechanic seems to be a woefully underutilized mechanic. The other hand, the upgrade mechanic is rather 'borked' at the current time.
So, until we show AF fundamentally doesn't work as its written (I think it fundamentally DOES work), lets stop trying to fundamentally rewrite the mechanic. At the current time, we should be focused on changes to activation costs, penalties, roll interpretations, etc that go into or come out of AF activations.
-WJL
I think auto-fire works, but I think it's fundamentally too powerful, especially given the other statistics assigned to auto-fire capable weapons.
The *least* dangerous auto-fire weapon has Damage 10. If, for example, you were to roll a net 4 successes and 2 advantage (I actually just rolled that), your attack would deal up to 39 points of damage to a single target, or 26 & 13, or 13, 13, & 13. That's a *lot* of damage in this system. Even a target with a Soak of 5 would take 24 points of damage from that attack if it were all focused on that single target.
My recommendation would be to add a challenge die for difficulty, and double the advantage cost or require a scaling number of advantages to activate auto-fire (1 for the first additional hit, 2 for the second, 3 for the third, etc.). Maybe even, provide an addendum that you can't 'hit' the same target more than once, or at least that it costs extra to do so, but then it starts getting complicated.
Maybe just make it so that, with auto-fire weapons, you can use an advantage as a single, unsoakable, point of damage that you can dish out to another target in the same range band?
You ever see a machine gun in action? It makes a mess out of it's target.
The designers have stated that their clear intent for autofire was to make it "good." It should be a terrifying prospect to go up against a force that has weapons of this caliber in open combat, and it should encourage the PCs to think laterally on how else they might be able to accomplish their goals.
And, to put it bluntly, you have to look at the source material and you have to take it into account when looking at these weapons. The designers are admitted Star Wars fans. They have freelancers who have years of experience working on Star Wars games writing for them. This stuff has been designed with the setting in mind.
These weapons are not common sights outside of a military force where they need that level of firepower. Obtaining them, keeping them powered, and moving them around are going to be a pain for a small group, especially if they don't have the necessary permits to own and operate one. Hell, even if you do, most civilized worlds simply aren't going to let you carry it around on the streets. Regardless of the fact that it may be legal to own one, do you think you're going to get away with carrying an assault weapon slung over your shoulder in any city in this country without being stopped, most likely detained and thoroughly questioned? It's not going to happen.
And when you have criminal syndicates operating as the law in the towns your PCs are likely to be frequenting, I can almost guarantee you that line of questioning is going to be quite a bit more… tortuous.
Without Signature
I've been thinking a bit. The fear rules cover this bit. If you're outnumbered only slightly, roll for fear… Add a setback for big weapons and upgrade difficulty for auto-firing opponents during/before/at beginning of combat. That's why the fear rules are there. I don't think there's a need for an extra mechanic for auto-fire, when the fear rules/guidelines already - sort of - cover it.
"What about the future…? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."
Initiative:
What technique would you use when both the success and advantage tie on a initiative roll. A re-roll? Using a d10?
Also, would you let someone aware of a incoming fight to choose his best between either Vigilance or Cool?
Initiative:
What technique would you use when both the success and advantage tie on a initiative roll. A re-roll? Using a d10?
Also, would you let someone aware of a incoming fight to choose his best between either Vigilance or Cool?
Locksathy said:
Initiative:
What technique would you use when both the success and advantage tie on a initiative roll. A re-roll? Using a d10?
Probably just cede it to the PCs. If the PC's have tied slots… they can work it out amongst themselves.
Locksathy said:
Also, would you let someone aware of a incoming fight to choose his best between either Vigilance or Cool?
The books make it pretty clear you use Cool if the player is aware combat's a-coming. Vigilance pretty much explicitly unallowed here so, no, I wouldn't allow the choice.
-WJL
"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."
-George E.P. Box, Ph.D.
"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simpleas few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."
Albert Einstein, Ph.D.
Locksathy said:
Initiative:
What technique would you use when both the success and advantage tie on a initiative roll. A re-roll? Using a d10?
Also, would you let someone aware of a incoming fight to choose his best between either Vigilance or Cool?
In the case of a tie between a PC and NPC, you can either have them roll-off (I'd suggest either a simple d6 or if you want to stick to EotE's dice, an Ability die, with the winner being the one to roll the most Advantages), or give it to which ever person had the most Proficiency dice in their dice pool.
Or as LethalDose said, just cede it to the PCs and keep things moving, which is the easiest solution by far.
As written, the answer to the second question would be Cool, as that's called out in the skill's description as being what's used when the character is fully aware the incoming fight. Vigilance is only when combat is a surprise, such as rounding a corner and seeing the bounty hunter that's been gunning for you, or walking into a Black Sun ambush.
Personally, I think Cool could very easily be dropped and it's uses split between Discipline (resisting social skills) and Vigilance (initiative), but that's a very different discussion.
Contributing Author of the GSA at http://gsa.thegamernation.org/
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, then you've never done acid."
- Eddie Izzard
Locksathy said:
Initiative:
What technique would you use when both the success and advantage tie on a initiative roll. A re-roll? Using a d10?
Also, would you let someone aware of a incoming fight to choose his best between either Vigilance or Cool?
Heroes/PCs act first. Done.
Venthrac said:
Locksathy said:
Initiative:
What technique would you use when both the success and advantage tie on a initiative roll. A re-roll? Using a d10?
Also, would you let someone aware of a incoming fight to choose his best between either Vigilance or Cool?
Heroes/PCs act first. Done.
Agreed. Except for when dramaturgical considerations require otherwise.
And if PC's tie, it's still just a matter of picking who acts first - the actual tie between them doesn't affect the order of play a whit… because the players PICK who goes on each initiative point.
Aramis
-=-=-=-=-
Smith & Wesson: The original PointClick interface!
Thank you guys!
Bones1968 said:
Suggestion: Make many attributes and skills have uses in combat. Some of this is already in the rules. The doctor has Stem Application talent. The leader has Inspiring Rhetoric and Field Commander talent. More of this would keep everyone engaged in all the encounters. For example:
Weapon: MM9 wrist rocket: Computer guided missile is mounded on the wrist. When making range attacks use commuters skill instead of ranged (light) skill. You may spend a maneuver to program the missile and ignore cover. (Computers, dam 8, crit 3, encumbrance 3, range medium, limited ammo 1, stun setting, 1500 credits + 100 credits per missile)
Talent: devious maneuver: You may as an action distract or confuse your opponent. Disconnect the power pack of his blaster, knock him off balance, throw sand in his eyes or convince him you have a thermal detonator. Must be within short range. Roll a opposed cunning test. If you succeed your opponent loses he next action. If you succeed with two triumphs you negate his defense for the next round.
These are the best ideas i've read in 17 pages of Combat feedback.
I also agree adding "dice rolling maneuver" is a terrible idea, as it would slow down an otherwise simple and fast paced combat. 1 rolling of dices per player per turn is a very elegant rule and shouldn't change.
"Devious maneuver" should rather be your Action and probably needs to be a skill check (Deceit).
But these "non-violent combat actions" are IMO very important and, if not limited to extra talents, could easily be described in the Skill section (the same way a Coerce action allows strain damage, for instance). Savage Worlds does this pretty well (tricks, test of wills).
Obvviously, veteran GMs and Players already use skills creatively during combat and are prompt to adapt rules on the fly. Nevertheless, a general rule or table on "how a skill could influence combat" could be helpful to new GMs, 'Could be something like that:
- 1 strain damage per success
- 1 Triumph = 1 Critical hit, even without weapon (= 1 mook down)
- Success = target loses is next Action, etc…
It's probably broken as written, but you got the idea.
Still, the Wirst rocket is kewl and the limited ammo quality a great balance of power. Kudos on this awesome, yet simple, idea !
Perfidius
| Page 17 of 17 (250 messages) | « First page... 14 15 16 17 |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS