Regarding the changes to droids and their equipment, if a droid has these 'certain pieces of equipment' built in, do they still increase their ENC as normal?  For armor plating that is thicker/heavier than the standard droid shell, I could see it following the normal ENC rules.  But if you have a verbobrain upgrade in place of a datapad, should the upgrade create the same +1 to ENC?  What other components should be available to be built in for a droid?  And what will the limit be for how many components can be built in? 

GoblynByte said:

There isn't a limit of 3 specs anymore. 

I don't want to "vigilante moderate" but:

• There's a thread in game mechanics to discuss the spec cost change
• The way blast and engagements work belong in either the combat or gear discussions, especially since nothing being discussed about these mechanics in this thread has been changed in the update.

That being said. 

@Bren_Waynero: I think that's a good question, and potentially a good idea.  Maybe a way to keep droids as "Specialists" and keep their XP totals low, but still make them appealing to play would be to provide them a -1 encumberance bonus on gear they have "built in" and give them a pool of starting credits to spend on installing this gear.  This keeps them unique and I think could really "hit" the droid feel.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Well, these are topics relating to the Week 4 update, and this is a thread for discussing our thoughts on the Week 4 updated, so they'd fit about as well here as anywhere else.

Not to mention that the FFG folks might be more likely to see reactions here than anywhere else.

LethalDose said:

Anyone who ends a sentence with the word "but" isn't really sincere about the rest of the sentence…

:)

As DM said - please don't. These topics are all related to the week 4 update, so are appropriate to be discussed here. If FFG don't want to see this sort of feedback here, then let them moderate it.

Donovan Morningfire said:

gribble said:

1. Nothing changed the range of blast.  
2. Nothing changed the definition of engaged.
3. Nothing in week 3's request for input involved the definition of engaged.

An argument about how to define "engaged", or a debate about whether or not a distance of 15" or 30" should be considered engaged is totally immaterial to the week 4 update.

C'mon guys. Please behave? There no need for pre-adolescent silliness and hostilities. Take whatever beef you got with each other outside, like normal kids and manly men do.

Inksplat said:

Not a big deal but in my example they are 5 feet apart. Probably as close to each other as the card players they are engaged with (one of whom could be hit with blast even though the other PC could not). The 2.5 feet comment was to emphasize that RAW I can't throw a stun grenade between them, which is the ideal.

I'm really struggling with engaged. Interact could mean to talk just out of touch range.

Blast and auto-fire require the targets to be engaged to activate them. If engaged is close enough to touch that seems restrictive. For example, using autofire from close up would require a lot of "walking"/larger arc to hit targets 10 feet apart. But as you increase range the two targets 10 feet apart appear very close and "walking" for autofire is very reasonable becasue you only need to move the weapon a little to have both in the arc. And these are long rounds (up to a minute) so a lot of arcing is not unreasonable anyway.

The basic move power is "The user may spend Π to move one object of silhouette 0
that he is engaged with up to his power's maximum range.
The object must be unsecured and unrestrained."

That seems very restrictive. You can move something you are close enough to pick up and throw farther anyway? Luke's use of Move in Empire to get his saber in the Wampa cave appears to be the most fledgling use of Move there is and it was out of his reach. That should just happen especially with concentration. If my Force-sensitive PC with Move wants to pull some cell keys to him that are 5 feet away, bam it should happen. But I think the Move powers are written for pure combat consideration.

I can make the calls about what engaged is, but I'd rather it be clear to the players. Right now it seems a hybrid between a "state" and a "range" and for me that slows things down more. Short range is easy.

Maybe a change is necessary but I've sure appreciated all the replies to help me understand this.

I think this is an ok forum to talk engaged because they did specifically mention engaged in the week 4 update with further clarification.

For my 2 creds, it a GM's call and the naration should take care of how close something is. Thats why there are no X number of feet per range catagories. No need to complete things.

Gamerunner said:

Out of curiosity was Luke engaged with his saber in the Wampa cave? I'll bet the replies would be 50/50.

usgrandprix said:

Depends on how strict you read the definition of Engaged.

It seems the leading interpretation is "person or object that is within arm's reach of you."  In that interpretation, Luke's lightsaber in the Wampa cave was well out of reach (around a meter or so from his outstretched hand, at least from the angles were shot), so that'd put it at Close, and thus out of range for Move's basic power by itself, which may very well be what was intended with the Week 2 update, given the rather extreme reactions to how potentially broken the Move power was initially (particularly the first Control Upgrade).  Personally, I've come to think they went a bit too far in nerfing Move's basic power to the point it's just a glorified parlor trick, and have voiced those thoughts in the Week 2 updated thread and the Force Feedback thread.

Melee seems to be a bit of an odd-duck, as there appears to be a small amount of leeway, figuring a pair of fighters are generally at arm's length but are also bobbing in and out of arm's length as they attack/parry/counter/thrust/dodge/etc one another.

GM: OK you're about to be eaten by a wampa. Your lightsaber is just out of reach. What do you do?

Luke: I use the Force to bring my lightsaber to my hand. Aw yeah, I'm about to fight a wampa with this lightsaber!

GM: OK, roll.

Luke: What? Do you know how much XP I spent to be able to move small objects?

GM: The rules say you gotta roll.

Luke: OK, what are my chances?

GM: 33%, but even then you might need to rely on the Dark Side.

Luke: If only Unlce Owen let me go get those power converters…

[Rolls 1 dark side point]

Luke: OK what happens?

GM: You are eaten by a wampa.

Party's Bounty hunter: Guys is that pizza ready? The Force whatever guy died again.

Guys: He was worthless anyway. Can't even move a lightsaber 1 meter away? Why don't you make a pilot this time. We could use a good pilot.

GM: OK Bounty Hunter you walk up to the wampa cave opening and see a wampa eating Luke.

Bounty Hunter: I toss in a thermal detonator and then take his lightsaber. Guys we're gonna get paid!

 Maybe blast should work more like auto fire.  Affect more targets in the engaged and short range bands for advantage and unintened targets for disadvantage. .

Hell let big damn bombs go to medium.

 There isn't much point to people moving to engaged with the abstract nature of things. Just like players will rarely be engaged as a group unless giving medical attention enemies will be unlikely to bunch up as well.  As it stands area weapons are limited in use.  Narration works to some extent but to much back and forth on who can hit what will just lead to maps and squares.  Keeping it loose keeps things moving better. 

Autofire still needs toning down. Disappointed it wasn't addressed yet.  And now wounds go negative so stims are useless. Their healing should  probably get bumped up if  wounds are still going to take forever to heal.  

But happy with the defense changes of talents.  Defense talents need to be In more classes but at least now people can pick them up with less hassle if not less cost. 

Unclear of why cover needed to be clarified as defense. Defense just adds the same number  setback dice anyway, does it interact with something else that the clarification is helpful to note?

 Agree specialties cost should be arranged in such a way that it isn't more cost effective to take out of career specialties first.  Keep one multiplier but add a surcharge to out of career.  Or  track them separate with the same multipliers I have 2 career specialties and 3 non career specialties and go from there.  Second options works well if more specialties become available to the careers in later source books. The cheaper cost would keep drawing you back to your career.

usgrandprix said:

I'd call that a case of the GM being a flaggrant asshole, and would applaud Luke's player for giving said GM a swift kick in the nards with a steel-toed boot.

As for the scene in question, it took a couple of minutes, giving Luke at least two tries even if one presumes that the GM was using "1 round = 1 minute" guideline from the Structured Gameplay mode.  Combat didn't really start until the Wampa showed up, which was a few seconds after Luke's second attempt to retrieve his lightsaber via the Force (again, he's barely trained at this point in the Saga), which he accomplished either by rolling a Light Side point (hey, some gamers are really lucky with their dice rolls) on that second attempt, or the player simply shrugged his shoulders and flipped a LS Destiny Point to be able to activate Move and save his bacon.