But it’s a Carbine, which means that if the stock is attached then it can be used as a Blaster Rifle, with the Ranged Heavy skill. It’s Encumbrance 1, and it’s not even Restricted.

The TT24 Hold Out Blaster is overpowered for what it is, and it’s also Encumbrance 1, and not Restricted. The DR-45 Dragoon is the same level of encumbrance as the TT24 and does even more damage — it even does more damage than most Heavy Blaster Pistols, all of which are Encumbrance 2 or higher. Who wouldn’t want a DR-45 Dragoon? Out of the box, it’s better than Han’s heavily modified Blastech DL-44.

IMO, no Carbine should be less than Encumbrance 2 or 3, and if it’s going to have nice bonuses like Accurate, then it should probably also be Restricted in addition to being very expensive.

I felt the same way about the oddness of the weapon overall. I like the idea of it - it reminds me of Colt Armies and Dragoons that you could bolt a stock up to - but it just seems incomplete somehow. Everyone brings up some very good points about versatility and Rarity and such, but I'm houseruling a couple changes to it in my game.

The range when in "pistol mode" will be Short, and the Encumbrance 2. The Encumbrance when in "carbine mode" will be 3.

The range when in "pistol mode" will be Short, and the Encumbrance 2. The Encumbrance when in "carbine mode" will be 3.

The pieces you slap on to switch it into Ranged (Heavy) mode are already attached to the gun via separate mounts, so it should stay the same encumbrance regardless unless you're putting both pieces into your bag or whatever - at which point it should probably take 2 maneuvers or a full action to be able to switch it.

The pieces you slap on to switch it into Ranged (Heavy) mode are already attached to the gun via separate mounts, so it should stay the same encumbrance regardless unless you're putting both pieces into your bag or whatever - at which point it should probably take 2 maneuvers or a full action to be able to switch it.

I can see the argument for that, but I can also see the argument that when the pieces are all put together that the result has a higher encumbrance than if they are separate. After all, it is now one piece that has to be managed as a single unit.

You could look at it like one of the old broomhandle pistols, or even Boba's blaster carbine. A lot of old pistols had specially reinforced holsters which, when attached to the pistol correctly, allowed them to function extremely well as pistol-caliber carbines.

The range when in "pistol mode" will be Short, and the Encumbrance 2. The Encumbrance when in "carbine mode" will be 3.

The pieces you slap on to switch it into Ranged (Heavy) mode are already attached to the gun via separate mounts, so it should stay the same encumbrance regardless unless you're putting both pieces into your bag or whatever - at which point it should probably take 2 maneuvers or a full action to be able to switch it.

I can see that. The extendo-barrel and the separate stock being clipped onto the gun while they aren't in use. I don't think that's practical, but I can imagine it.

What I am thinking is that the barrel and stock are probably stowed away in your pack, or maybe tucked into your belt. The pistol itself has an Encumbrance of 2 (in my house rule), and once you grab out and attach the extra barrel length and stock, it becomes a larger and heavier weapon with an Encumbrance of 3 (in my house rule).

If the two parts are actually attached to the gun and just fold away on hinges, that might be more reasonable. But then you've still got a pistol with the weight and mass of a carbine, albeit folded up. (That's quite the holster you've got there.) If that's the case, then I might say the Encumbrance is always 3 no matter which configuration it's in. I'm imagining the barrel folds up to lay across the top of the gun, and the stock folds to the left so it doesn't block your (right) hand from grabbing the grip. A lefty would want to reverse the hinge so that it folds to the right.

So, is it a gun with foldy parts, or is it a gun with attachable parts?

The range when in "pistol mode" will be Short, and the Encumbrance 2. The Encumbrance when in "carbine mode" will be 3.

The pieces you slap on to switch it into Ranged (Heavy) mode are already attached to the gun via separate mounts, so it should stay the same encumbrance regardless unless you're putting both pieces into your bag or whatever - at which point it should probably take 2 maneuvers or a full action to be able to switch it.

I can see that. The extendo-barrel and the separate stock being clipped onto the gun while they aren't in use. I don't think that's practical, but I can imagine it.

What I am thinking is that the barrel and stock are probably stowed away in your pack, or maybe tucked into your belt. The pistol itself has an Encumbrance of 2 (in my house rule), and once you grab out and attach the extra barrel length and stock, it becomes a larger and heavier weapon with an Encumbrance of 3 (in my house rule).

If the two parts are actually attached to the gun and just fold away on hinges, that might be more reasonable. But then you've still got a pistol with the weight and mass of a carbine, albeit folded up. (That's quite the holster you've got there.) If that's the case, then I might say the Encumbrance is always 3 no matter which configuration it's in. I'm imagining the barrel folds up to lay across the top of the gun, and the stock folds to the left so it doesn't block your (right) hand from grabbing the grip. A lefty would want to reverse the hinge so that it folds to the right.

So, is it a gun with foldy parts, or is it a gun with attachable parts?

I would say attachment, but the stock is a foldable / adjustable attachment. One that might be left on more often then the barrel extension. I general look at it being similar to a Uzi, Tech 9, MPK5, and other types of machine pistols which can be held in one or two hands. To be clear pistol mode (one hand) carbine (two hands). As for the holster I would say it could hold the pistol with the extension barrel next to it in a separate pocket and possible a waist pouch for the removable stock. Of course a backpack or briefcase would also be viable options to carry.

So, is it a gun with foldy parts, or is it a gun with attachable parts?

Attachable.

"... can be fitted with a detachable polycarbonate shoulder stock and a range-extending augmented spin barrel ... The stock and barrel are fixed to the base weapon with sturdy quick-release mounts that allow an experienced user to mount or dismount the attachments quickly and easily."

One thing to note about a changing encumbrance is that encumbrance isn't just representing how heavy something is its representing also how bulky and unwieldy it is. So a changing when the stock folded out would make sense.

Anyways Ive yet to see any real reason for the mechanical ability to switch it from light to heavy, I get its not bad stat wise compared to similar weapons, that's fine but the actual function of changing it from light to heavy serves no purpose if the stats remain entirely the same as even optimally, switching the two would never benefit you as +1 or higher skill in heavy would mean switching to light to avoid a difficulty upgrade would make you downgrade at least one proficiency die thus defeating the point (and if you had higher ranged light switching to heavy would be utterly meaningless and just make the weapon worse since the only thing that would change would be increased difficulty when firing it at short range).

They could have just as easily rp wise said its compact and done away with the switch ability entirely.

I'm going with an above poster that I think this was supposed to be short range in pistol form and medium in carbine form which would give a purpose to the switching capability to sacrifice some skill if you had higher ranged light in exchange to shoot further.

The Order 66 podcast episode 46 from Saturday (1/31) did ask the developers some of the questions about the Dragoon.

It starts at 53:30 minutes in.

Yay! I get credit for a question!

I get why it’s not Restricted, that’s not a problem.

But they say the Dragoon is not intended for anyone who is a front-line trooper, yet it does more damage than any other Heavy Pistol — right?

And they didn’t address at all the issue of how it takes the same amount of Encumbrance as a Holdout Pistol, and yet does as much damage (or more) than a Heavy Pistol.

I get why it’s not Restricted, that’s not a problem.

But they say the Dragoon is not intended for anyone who is a front-line trooper, yet it does more damage than any other Heavy Pistol — right?

And they didn’t address at all the issue of how it takes the same amount of Encumbrance as a Holdout Pistol, and yet does as much damage (or more) than a Heavy Pistol.

They did, it just wasn't the answer you wanted. Big difference.

Frankly, I'm not surprised their answer was "it's working as we intended." Jason's analogy of the old Cold Dragoons isn't entirely wrong either in terms of a similar situation, that being a sidearm with a fair amount of kick for its day that could be changed to work as a rifle. It's also freakishly expensive in contrast to a heavy blaster pistol, or even a blaster carbine which has better damage and access to generally better weapon attachments.

For what little it's worth, I'll probably house rule the Dragoon as being Encumbrance 2 to account for the notion that it's not too far off from a real-world Desert Eagle, just with a stock option.

They did, it just wasn't the answer you wanted. Big difference.

Actually, no — they didn’t. They did not at all address how this Carbine is supposed to have the same amount of Encumbrance as a Holdout Blaster.

Frankly, I'm not surprised their answer was "it's working as we intended." Jason's analogy of the old Cold Dragoons isn't entirely wrong either in terms of a similar situation, that being a sidearm with a fair amount of kick for its day that could be changed to work as a rifle.

If you want to talk about the old Colt Dragoons, they were MONSTERS. Bigger than any other pistol of the day.

They were not anywhere REMOTELY close to the size of a Derringer.

And that’s before you get to the discussion of the added encumbrance of the holster/shoulder stock.

It's also freakishly expensive in contrast to a heavy blaster pistol, or even a blaster carbine which has better damage and access to generally better weapon attachments.

Freakishly expensive? Hardly.

Only twice the cost of a DL-7H, which does the same amount of damage and has the same crit rating and same range, and the DL-7H is Encumbrance 2 instead of 1. The DL-7H is Restricted, however.

Only 800 credits more expensive the OK-98, which does one more point of damage, is Encumbrance 4, and is not Restricted.

Twice the cost of the “standard” Blaster Carbine, which does one more point of damage, is Encumbrance 3, and is not Restricted.

Only 300 credits more than a full-on Blaster Rifle, which I don’t think has ever been referred to as “Freakishly Expensive” by anyone, ever.

So, Freakishly Expensive? Hardly.

For what little it's worth, I'll probably house rule the Dragoon as being Encumbrance 2 to account for the notion that it's not too far off from a real-world Desert Eagle, just with a stock option.

I’d go for Encumbrance 3 by itself, and the holster would be Encumbrance 2. When the weapon is in the holster, or the holster is attached as a stock, then I’d say that the combination is Encumbrance 4.

Here's a pic of a colt dragoon

http://www.rockislandauction.com/auction_photo_image/cid/13590

I'd sort of want that as an Ench 2 base and at least 4 with the stock.

Here's a pic of a colt dragoon

http://www.rockislandauction.com/auction_photo_image/cid/13590

I'd sort of want that as an Ench 2 base and at least 4 with the stock.

Ahh, if that’s the Colt Dragoon, then that stock can’t possibly also be a holster!

I did find examples of Broomhandle Mausers, Lugers, and a predecessor to the M1911-A1, all of which could be had with combination stock/holsters, but I’m not finding any examples of older pistols that seem to have done that.

Far as I know the stock doubling as a holster really only common in the very late 19th and early 20th century pistols.

The C96 Mauser (Han's Blaster was based on) was probably the most common as the Chinese got the design and copied it a few 100,000 times + their imports around the time of the Boxer Rebellion which forbade the export of long-arms to the country.

For the most part it in the early 20th century it occupied a niche prior to the more widespread adoption of the submachineguns and the scarcity of semi-automatic rifles. Plus with the advent of WW1 trench fighting, the short-mid range, high rate of fire pistols where quite dangerous.

You'll also find them bolted up to Browning HiPowers and Luger P08's, both of which I believe had an option where the stock doubled as a holster. There's a few modern variations on the theme coming back into vogue with things like Glock's bolted up inside an external stock with a high cap magazine and more of a SMG/Carbine configuration.

Here's a pic of a colt dragoon

http://www.rockislandauction.com/auction_photo_image/cid/13590

I'd sort of want that as an Ench 2 base and at least 4 with the stock.

Ahh, if that’s the Colt Dragoon, then that stock can’t possibly also be a holster!

I did find examples of Broomhandle Mausers, Lugers, and a predecessor to the M1911-A1, all of which could be had with combination stock/holsters, but I’m not finding any examples of older pistols that seem to have done that.

If you want a good modern day equivalent to the Dragoon. Look at the Smith and Wesson 500. Here is a round comparison. This can also be a good real world comparison for real world to blaster pistols.

If you want a good modern day equivalent to the Dragoon. Look at the Smith and Wesson 500. Here is a round comparison. This can also be a good real world comparison for real world to blaster pistols.

Okay, so that’s a giant round, but what kind of “pistol” would be firing that monster?

EDIT: Okay, now I found the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_500

But I’m not seeing a size comparison with other weapons. From the description, it seems to me like this would be seriously overpowered even as a proper carbine, with shoulder stock and all. Even then, it would just punch through human targets and leave a relatively small hole — this thing is meant for taking down Water Buffalo, or Elephants, or other large African game.

If you want a good modern day equivalent to the Dragoon. Look at the Smith and Wesson 500. Here is a round comparison. This can also be a good real world comparison for real world to blaster pistols.

Okay, so that’s a giant round, but what kind of “pistol” would be firing that monster?

EDIT: Okay, now I found the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_500

But I’m not seeing a size comparison with other weapons. From the description, it seems to me like this would be seriously overpowered even as a proper carbine, with shoulder stock and all. Even then, it would just punch through human targets and leave a relatively small hole — this thing is meant for taking down Water Buffalo, or Elephants, or other large African game.

It is often used in Alaska for protection against Bears.

Found something to add to the comparison. You can see the size comparison 44 Mag vs the 5.56 which is what is used in the M4. So to put it out there it is comparable to a carbine round. Which really does fit with DR-45 Dragoon Concept we have. It is a ridiculously powerful pistol and it does come in 4in, 6in, and 8in Barrel. A M4 Carbine has about a 15in barrel. Having a Barrel extension (like a suppressor) and a custom attachment stock is feasible, but that would explain the price. Half of it in the two Attachments is easy to see.

Btw, there is a mechanical benefit in switching from Heavy to Light, although it is a bit situational; When fighting with a ranged weapon while engaged with an enemy, Ranged(Heavy) gets +2 difficulty, while Ranged(light) gets only +1 difficulty.

It's good for a beast rider too, pistol for when he needs to hold the reins, carbine when he needs to shoot when stopped or dismounted. From an RP perspective it would be more desirable than 2 separate weapons to maintain when out in the wilderness

Saying that my preference for a beast rider character would be some kind of shotgun!

Btw, there is a mechanical benefit in switching from Heavy to Light, although it is a bit situational; When fighting with a ranged weapon while engaged with an enemy, Ranged(Heavy) gets +2 difficulty, while Ranged(light) gets only +1 difficulty.

That's already been mentioned, and remember it costs a maneuver to flip the stock. You could've spent that maneuver to disengage and reduce the difficulty by 2. People weren't arguing there was no mechanical benefit, just that the benefit was negligible (in which case, why bother with the rule?).

I've always thought bringing up rarity is rather silly. If the GM likes it, the players will be able to get it. If the GM doesn't, they can say "Not in my game". To me, the pistol is just power creep plain and simple. But they have to put that stuff in the splat books or they can't sell them to us.