Hello all :-)

After a few EotE games I wonder about making a simple ranged skill instead of separate ranged (light) and ranged (heavy). It's because there is no reason in spending points in ranged (light). Light has no adventage over heavy: twice less damage, harder to crit, no special abilities (like auto). Everyone will want to tarry a rifle. So points invested in light will soon turn out wasted.

I figured it out during one of my games when two characters invested in ranged (heavy) and one in ranged (light). The former killed enemies in one shot, the latter was cleary weaker and outpaced, gaining no benefits from fighting with pistols.

Star Wars d6 also presented one ranged skill. What do you think?

Play it the way you want but, in real life, pistols and long arms handle differently and require different skill sets to fire competently. That's why you have two different skills for small arms in the game. Also, there are places where carrying a long arm may be against the law or be unnecessary and having a pistol might be your only option.

It's also important to not get hung up on the mechanical advantages of rifles versus pistols. Many characters will have a preference of pistols over rifles. This doesn't sound like the case at your table, but it's important to keep that in mind.

Light has no adventage over heavy: twice less damage, harder to crit, no special abilities (like auto). Everyone will want to tarry a rifle. So points invested in light will soon turn out wasted.

My players found out the hard way you are wrong.

- concealment (is that a repeating blaster in your pocket or are you just really really really happy to see me?)

- lower difficulty at short ranges

-low crit and auto fire pistols exist, just not in the core book

Light has no adventage over heavy: twice less damage, harder to crit, no special abilities (like auto). Everyone will want to tarry a rifle. So points invested in light will soon turn out wasted.

My players found out the hard way you are wrong.

- concealment (is that a repeating blaster in your pocket or are you just really really really happy to see me?)

- lower difficulty at short ranges

-low crit and auto fire pistols exist, just not in the core book

I agree about concealment. But when it comes to fight you will prefer to have bigger gun. Classy and crafty smuggler takes no adventage over smuggler with a rifle. Which is fine. Which isn't fine is when investment of ranged (light) instead of (heavy) makes you a losing side :-)

I'm an easygoing GM and I don't like punishing players for bad decisions made during character creation. Not everyone starts studying the core rulebook from weapon charts :-)

It's also important to not get hung up on the mechanical advantages of rifles versus pistols. Many characters will have a preference of pistols over rifles. This doesn't sound like the case at your table, but it's important to keep that in mind.

What Ghostofman said - mechanically, and even logically (in terms of the game) - the bigger gun, the heavier armour, the higher WT and soak - the better in combat you are. However, ask yourself how often are your players allowed to carry all their best equipment around - if all the time, if in your games no-one cares if a group of heavily armed and armoured beings roam the cities and starports other other civilized locations - then yes, light ranged skill might seem unnecessary (unless any PC has low enc. - heavy rifles tend to weigh a bit, or even be cumbersome).

If the answer to my question is negative - then suddenly having BOTH skills pays off. For example in my games it is generally OK to carry a sidearm almost everywhere with you, but showing up with a rifle in a civilized place it means you're looking for trouble, police forces might want to check your ID (it might be ok to carry heavies if you're a bodyguard etc).

Consider the following additional points:

1) Encumbrance. Carrying a pistol or two frees up encumbrance that a rifle would otherwise require.

2) Versatility. You can carry more pistols than rifles, and do more when you're holding one. When in a combat encounter with a pistol, your other hand is free to do whatever else you want.

3) The big one: Grenades. Grenades use the Ranged (Light) skill. Condensing the skills down to one "Ranged" skill would make it far too powerful, and almost completely invalidate Melee weapons (which are already not the optimum combat choice).

I agree about concealment. But when it comes to fight you will prefer to have bigger gun. Classy and crafty smuggler takes no adventage over smuggler with a rifle. Which is fine. Which isn't fine is when investment of ranged (light) instead of (heavy) makes you a losing side :-)

Well as others have said enforcing gun control rules makes pistols suddenly more useful. Take the CRB example of the laws in Elrood sector: no havy weapons are allowed, so your rifles are uselss. Also when meeting an important npc you could be stripped of your rifles just in case, but pistols could be allowed. Look at Han Solo, he always carried the blaster pistol even if he knew perfectly well that a rifle was better. The only civilian character that routinely carried a rifle was Boba fett, and his BH status could give him certain privileges with law enforcement.

Lower encumbrance is a thing, as is using grenades.

Even though I mostly use a blaster rifle, I still have pistols and grenades.

GMs are also quite fond of saying ''that's a nice heavy blaster you got there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it''

Lower encumbrance is a thing, as is using grenades.

Even though I mostly use a blaster rifle, I still have pistols and grenades.

GMs are also quite fond of saying ''that's a nice heavy blaster you got there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it''

Oh you mean something like "Oh look...you just rolled a Dispair. Looks like your fancy rifle just ran out of ammo. Now don't you wish you had that pistol?"

Granades make ranged (light) more considerable, I'd forgotten about them.

Making restrictions viable is also a good idea. My gamers usually don't carry very much, so encumberance isn't really a thing, but thanks for a hint anyway.

You see, I ran recently The Long Arm... and on Ryloth's wastelands there weren't many enforcers and law at all. As on many other places in Outer Rim as I suppose.

I still struggle with letting ranged (light) go, but you all made a good point - just to tell gamers about versatily of sidearms and fire power of long rifles for them to know what will be useful and when :-)

Light has no adventage over heavy: twice less damage, harder to crit, no special abilities (like auto). Everyone will want to tarry a rifle. So points invested in light will soon turn out wasted.

My players found out the hard way you are wrong.

- concealment (is that a repeating blaster in your pocket or are you just really really really happy to see me?)

- lower difficulty at short ranges

-low crit and auto fire pistols exist, just not in the core book

At short ranges? What rule are you relating to? Didn't you mean engaged?

I agree about concealment. But when it comes to fight you will prefer to have bigger gun. Classy and crafty smuggler takes no adventage over smuggler with a rifle. Which is fine. Which isn't fine is when investment of ranged (light) instead of (heavy) makes you a losing side :-)

Right, but let me set the stage. You are going to meet a new contact, and he comes rolling up to see you standing around with a bunch of meter and a half long rifles. What's he going to think?

Long guns are better for somethings sure, but they also send a much more aggressive message that you might not want to send. So while you might be better when the shooting starts you'll also go into nonshooting scenarios looking like you are expecting a fight, and that'll change the way the interaction works.

One thing I like to remind people is to remember that a weapon is a tool, you bring the tool you need for the job. If I'm expecting an open fight I carry a rifle. If I'm expecting a built up fight I carry a carbine or heavy pistol. If its not a fight that could become a fight I carry pistols that I can shove in a pocket or wear concealed so the other guy doesn't get jumpy.

I think theres a lot of certain point of views here too. A combat heavy merc campaign may be more appropriate for heavier weapons and the higher damage output would allow for tougher encounters.

On the other hand a more conventional campaign will need more varity and combats might not always be against a dozen armored troopers.

Also there's the issue of balance. The reason different specs take different weapons is not only for thematics, but also so under different conditions the different characters will be able to shine. If the guy with the heavy rifle is always winning combats the pistol guy will feel not so useful. So when the quick shootout in the crumby apartment goes down and you're stuck in engaged range the pistol guys get to do stuff.

I get your point, Ghostofman. You made me think again :-)

But as far I remember engaged doesn't mean close range. Engaged is when combatants are fighting face to face, when in close range they still remain distant. Page 205 in core rulebook makes it clear better than I do :-)

Both Heavy and Light Ranged weapons have an Easy (one purple) check at short range. If you want to shoot when you are engaged though, Light becomes an Average (two purple) check and Heavy becomes a Hard (three purple) check.

Oh you mean something like "Oh look...you just rolled a Dispair. Looks like your fancy rifle just ran out of ammo. Now don't you wish you had that pistol?"

I was going to say the same thing. Althoug it is quite easy to get some additional reloads and be prepared for those effects. On the other hand losing dropping or losing your gun because of advantages / triumphs of the enemy or by your own fault (threat & dispair) will left with no weapon to fall back to, if you can't handle a pistol.

From a gm perspective I would see it as the gms responsibility to make pistols a viable option. This is especially important in a narrative system, where quite a few situations are not handled by explicitly stated rule-sets.

Imagine a situation where your players are in very confined space. Handling Heavy-Weapons would easily warant one or two setback dice. Or firing an light repeating balster in a zero G environment, it will be very hard to control the recoil. (Maybe two setbacks or upgraded check) Not so much with a pistol which might only give one setback, if at all.

All those are just possibilities and ideas, which are not really covered by explicit-rules but are viable in a narrative system like eote. But you can use them to make pistols a good choice for a sidearm.

So unless you and your table are looking for a combat oriented game I would think twice to propose such a house rule.

Maybe now your players are playing characters that are more combat focussed. That doesn't necesarily mean that they will do in the future and will not enjoy playing a more social-oriented class.

If find it dull to make combat mechanics THE most important factor to decide which gear to use. At our table some people use theier weapon as part of their character concept. But thats just us and a scholar with ranged heavy weapon, even of he has the brawn and agility to wield it, seems a bit weird.

Punch line: If you really want to you can easily make ranged light a nice complement, even for combat focussed groups. Employ the right challenges, situations and pistols will be very usefull.

I get your point, Ghostofman. You made me think again :-)

But as far I remember engaged doesn't mean close range. Engaged is when combatants are fighting face to face, when in close range they still remain distant. Page 205 in core rulebook makes it clear better than I do :-)

More Certain Points of View ahead:

208 that says engaged is a subset of short and is close enough that characters can directly interact with each other. But it's actually what's on Page 155 that'll give you that first step into a larger world.

The Blast weapon quality.

See the kneejerk response to the Engaged band is to assume it means you're right up next to the other character. It's something that's been kinda driven into our heads from various other systems *coughd&dcough* that to make a melee attack you have to be RIGHT NEXT to your target. A matter of as little as 5 feet and whoop! No more melee for you!

But in this system range bands are more abstract, there's no certain distance, and that's where the Blast quality shows you something kinda neat. Blast hits all targets within engaged range to the target. Since it's hard to picture a grenade only hitting the two troopers out of a squad that happen to be hugging the moment the grenade lands at their feet, you realize that Engaged isn't "so close you can lick his face" and more "within a dozen or so feet."

I know.."But GoM!!! how can I hit someone with my fists that's a dozen or so feet away from meeee!?!?" Simple, you take a step and then you hit him. But the thing is that step doesn't take any serious thought or effort, and may actually be part of the punching. So it doesn't require a maneuver to close that distance, so it's all within one band. Just like how two starfighters at Close Range don't have to roll a piloting check every turn before they can shoot at each other, it's just assumed that that slight jockeying for position is part of the gunnery process. (Spoiler: vehicle combat in this system actually has more in common with melee combat then ranged combat.)

And that slight expansion of Engaged range is what changes things just enough to make it more relevant. If you're all in a crumby apartment down on 1313 everyone in the room is probably at engaged range with each other. If you're cutting a deal with spice dealer with only a couple crates worth of spice between you, you're probably engaged. If you are in a back alley of Mos Eisly you're probably engaged with at lease a few other party members. If your speederbike is right next to another as you scream through to forests of Endor, you're probably engaged.

And that's what happened to my players. Two of them, both speced for Ranged Heavy, confronted a pair of Rodian thugs in a club. Across the table was engaged range. So when the shooting started one went for his rifle, the other took the skill hit and went for her pistol. While the rifle guy was able to WT-kill a thug when he hit... it was hard for him to hit. The pistol girl on the other hand, while she gave up the possibility of a Triumph, the reduced difficulty allowed her to hit and Crit-kill the thugs more easily by leaving the advantage to do so.

(...) and on Ryloth's wastelands there weren't many enforcers and law at all. As on many other places in Outer Rim as I suppose.

Actually I believe that, barring complete anarchy cases, most societies WANT some kind of order and safety. Even on the notorious smuggler's moon there are Hutt clans with their kind of law. Even small settlements across the Outer Rim will have a(sometimes self-appointed) marshal or the 'local council' made of a few stronghands to solve troubles. Yes, these might be an easy challenge for a group of hardened mercs most PCs are, but, building on the above examples, consider this:

Your heavily armed group rolls into a small outer rim settlement and roams around the small, peaceful town. The locals are scared. "Who are they?", "Mommy, are they going to shoot us?" The marshal kindly asks them to leave their weapons on their ship. "We want no trouble here, we're just farmers and herders 'ere" he says.

PCs agree - the villagers are friendlier "Hey, these newcomers aren't that bad, let's talk to them"

PCs disagree - the tension rises etc. maybe a local hero wants to prove something, death happens, any peaceful way to find the information on the lost archives of Bricdok perishes...

Sure, the second attitude is fine if your PCs don't care about making friends, coercion is they way of life and step by step suddenly THEY're the badguys. Until one day they meet heroes and realize what's going on... Might lead to some good roleplaying too!

Summing up: there is no good or bad approach to PC's attitude and behavior. Just consequences.

It's weird to me nobody has mentioned dual wielding yet. I've played with plenty of gunslingers who roll enough triumph and/or advantage to link up for a lot of damage using certain pistols. Yes, a really good rifle easily outshines dual pistols, but dual pistols allows for slightly higher damage at closer ranges sooner compared to investing in an HBR. Say you're shooting at something with 5 soak at short range. You get two successes, bringing your damage total to 9x2 damage (assume HBPx2). That totals 8 damage. Say you score the same amount of success with a blaster rifle. 11 damage once against 5 soak is only 6 damage. Not a huge difference and it's a bigger gamble, but it's still slightly higher damage. And to some people, that's just an appeal.

Plus there's always disarming...you've never seen a more terrified combat-heavy player than when a giant gorilla-mole...THING hit him so hard he dropped his bowcaster. The way I play it, the weapon is almost ALWAYS knocked to short range (it enhances the "gun-struggle" trope). Depending on the environment, the weapon could fall or slide even farther. If your GM isn't doing everything he can to take away, damage, or otherwise foil your weapons or your means of attacking, he's either railroading the combat or just doing it wrong.

With a pistol, either in dual wielding or as a side-arm, you can economically save on maneuvers, especially if it has quick-draw mods or you have the quick-draw talent. After being disarmed with a rifle (the way I play it with the short range disarming, at least) you need at least two maneuvers to rearm yourself. One to move, one to pick up your gun. So you either just wasted two strain to arm yourself again or you just sacrificed your action. The same goes for stimming yourself...as far as I'm concerned, anyone who is able to manipulate their inventory, even momentarily, while using a rifle is out of bounds rules-wise.

In addition, yes. Grenades. The way I play it, you can't prime and throw a grenade with a rifle in your hands...again, it comes down to maneuver economy. With just one pistol in your primary hand, you can maneuver to draw just the grenade. You don't have to put the rifle away first.

Finally, Swashbuckling. I've seen plenty of characters who like to dual out in melee/Ranged(Light) because it allows them to put out damage as they close the distance with a sword or knife. Plus a pistol allows you to have SOME kind of melee weapon in your off hand in order to eliminate the boost attackers get against you (another house rule that's always made sense to me). It may not be as efficient as going all agility or brawn with a single maxed out skill, but some players prefer style to function as others have been posting. This is a ROLE playing game, not a tactical strategy game. Some people just enjoy the feel of pistols better.

My character's customized blaster pistols do the same damage to lightly armored targets as a stock blaster rifle. They just don't shoot as far.

When stormtroopers confiscate them, I always ask for a receipt.

In addition, yes. Grenades. The way I play it, you can't prime and throw a grenade with a rifle in your hands...again, it comes down to maneuver economy. With just one pistol in your primary hand, you can maneuver to draw just the grenade. You don't have to put the rifle away first.

Manouver economy is also a good mention.

With rifles and granades, don't you think that kind of gun has some straps attached? Like http://www.iloveswords.com/images/military/MG_GunStrap.jpg With a rifle on straps you can instantly free your hands, without risking loss of weapon.

In addition, yes. Grenades. The way I play it, you can't prime and throw a grenade with a rifle in your hands...again, it comes down to maneuver economy. With just one pistol in your primary hand, you can maneuver to draw just the grenade. You don't have to put the rifle away first.

Manouver economy is also a good mention.

With rifles and granades, don't you think that kind of gun has some straps attached? Like http://www.iloveswords.com/images/military/MG_GunStrap.jpg With a rifle on straps you can instantly free your hands, without risking loss of weapon.

Considering that the sling is a listed weapon attachment with a cost attached, if your character didn't buy it or find a weapon with it, I would say your rifle doesn't have it.

I actually think Star Wars grenades are designed to be operated one handed.

Remember in ROTJ when Leia pulls the Thermal Detonator out in Jabba's palace. She activates it with just her thumb.

In addition, yes. Grenades. The way I play it, you can't prime and throw a grenade with a rifle in your hands...again, it comes down to maneuver economy. With just one pistol in your primary hand, you can maneuver to draw just the grenade. You don't have to put the rifle away first.

Manouver economy is also a good mention.

With rifles and granades, don't you think that kind of gun has some straps attached? Like http://www.iloveswords.com/images/military/MG_GunStrap.jpg With a rifle on straps you can instantly free your hands, without risking loss of weapon.

I don't, really. Look at storm troopers, the only ones with slings are the sergeants with T-21s. Most Star Wars weapons, even in the military, just don't have slings. The Endor rebels are a good example of rifle-armed soldiers with slings, but they don't have tactical slings. The kind of modern tactical sling that allows you to drop a rifle so it dangles on your chest is practically non-existent in the Star Wars universe. You'd still have to hang the weapon back over your shoulder if you want to secure it. To me, that still smacks of requiring a maneuver (seriously, reaching into your pocket takes a maneuver). The upgrade for quick-draw makes more sense as one of these kind of slings.

The description of the Weapon Sling in RAW indicates it isn't just a carrying shoulder sling. Now it does say as one of its examples, "carrying a weapon off the shoulder", but I think that implies the WW2 style slings over the shoulder (ex: The gun strap link in Oblivion's post) that allows the weapon to be fired, not just slung over the shoulder for stowage. Further evidence is the slings (without modifcation) decrease Cumbersome by 1. Cumbersome only comes into play when you are SHOOTING the weapon. So, the Weapon Sling attachment is a sling which implies the weapon is ready for shooting, not a Shoulder Sling that is only about stowage. Example models of the Weapon Sling include a, "three-point sling" and a "one-point" sling which is what Whitestone is describing above (pictured).

OPTION 1: Perhaps add a Shoulder Sling as a very cheap attachment. This 20 credit sling would simply reduce the Encumbrance of the weapon by 2 and frees up ONE hand when it's slung on a shoulder (if you've ever used one, you still need a hand to keep it on your shoulder). Readying it for shooting would require a Maneuver. I suppose you could free up both hands if you sling it sideways across your back (military guys will know what I mean), but that would require 2 Maneuvers to get it ready to shoot again.

A note should be added to the Weapon Sling in RAW to indicate how many hands are free when not shooting the weapon. A good tactical sling allows you to free up both hands. A poor tactical sling can still require you to hold the weapon with one hand in order to safely free up the other hand. I've used both styles.

OPTION 2: Instead of complicating things by adding a Shoulder Sling attachment, you could house rule the Weapon Sling to be only a simple shoulder sling. Modications are needed to turn it into the modern tactical sling. That would go along with the Star Wars lack of tactical slings Whitestone mentioned. Those cool non-just-stowage slings are found being carried by those with enough know-how to figure out how to modify their basic shoulder sling into something you can use while firing:

WEAPON SLING (house version)

As is, a basic sling for carrying a weapon over the shoulder to make it easier to carry long distances. Such a stowed weapon is not ready for use unless an owner further modifies his sling into something more ingenious. These attachments may only be used with Ranged (Heavy) weapons.

Base Modifiers: Decreases Encumbrance of the weapon by 2, but only when stowed. Carrying a weapon over the shoulder requires one hand and needs 1 Maneuver to stow or ready. Carrying a weapon across the back (angled) frees both hands but needs 2 Maneuvers to stow or ready.

Modication Options:

Reduce Cumbersome by 1. Always ready to fire. One hand can be free as an incidental, both by using a Maneuver (rotate to back).

One innate talent (Quick Draw). Alawys ready to fire. Both hands can be free as an incidental.

This explains everything I've ever been able to do with a simple shoulder sling through a modern single-point sling.

The sling gives the innate talent Quick Draw also. If you do not purchase that attachment, it is a maneuver to draw or holster your rifle. If you want to say your character dropped it, then fine, but then its on the ground and will require maneuvers to pick it up later.