The 'under-barrel flame projector' attachment has damage 10, crit 2, burn 5, blast 2. It does the same damage as a heavy blaster rifle and only needs the 2 advantage to then set an opponent on fire to take another 10 damage per round (without an attack roll, or occupying the PCs action) for 5 rounds (or else taking his action to put out the flames). This combination seems more potent to me than the alternatives.

One of our group has found this toy and come to rely on it exclusively. I haven't said anything to him yet, but I find the attachment overpowered and perhaps unbalanced.

I'm looking for someone to convince me otherwise.

For consideration:
1. The price and illegality. Getting a license for the thing is darn near out of the question, and the attachment is not cheap, either.
2. It can be confiscated by the authorities due to its Restricted nature.
3. It can only fire at Short range.
4. It eats up 2 hardpoints and adds +1 cumbersome rating to your weapon, limiting options for some.
5. It can be used to set your allies aflame with only a couple Threat (see Flame Projector description, page 165).

How to deal with it:

1. Swarm your PCs with melee-fighting minions. I doubt any of your PCs would appreciate flamethrowers being fired in their direction.

2. Have your ranged enemies take shots from Long or Medium range. Put them out of reach of the flamethrowers for a round or two while the PCs try to figure out how to get to them.

3. Have adventures take place where weapons aren't allowed or would be frowned upon for social reasons, requiring your players to leave their heavier guns behind and try to sneak sidearms or small melee weapons in with them.

It is a terror weapon. It is meant to be horrible and deadly. Make people flee in fear rather than fight.

No security force should tolerate someone walking around casually with one.

Customs inspectors finding a weapon on board a ship should raise a security alert, at least.

People should treat anyone carrying such a weapon as dangerous in the extreme, if they deal with them at all.

There should be weapons that are nightmarish. But carrying or using it should have a price greater than ammo or credits.

I actually meant to post this question in the standard forum, rather than beginner game.

I appreciate the feedback so far. I did consider the option about two threats, but that would require the opponent to be engaged with an ally, correct? (similar to rolling a despair otherwise)

My concern about the strictly role-playing options are the inevitable complaints I'll get from the player.

My concern about the strictly role-playing options are the inevitable complaints I'll get from the player.

What kind of complaints could this possibly engender?

If the player actually resorts to complaining because you took away his character's toy, appeal to common sense and inform him that he knew going in that it was a Restricted option. If he doesn't like it, then in the future he shouldn't do anything illegal.

But like...be more tactful than that

My concern about the strictly role-playing options are the inevitable complaints I'll get from the player.

What kind of complaints could this possible engender?

If the player actually resorts to complaining because you took away his character's toy, appeal to common sense and inform him that he knew going in that it was a Restricted option. If he doesn't like it, then in the future he shouldn't do anything illegal.

But like...be more tactful than that

We are typically on places like The Wheel or Nal Hutta or Tatooine which he would (perhaps rightfully) point out aren't the most civilized of places to begin with. He'd then likely say 'it hasn't been an issue before'. I'm sure I'd also get 'the jawa never has any issue with his heavy blaster pistol' or 'the other guy is carrying a carbine!!' He'd then likely try to disguise the flame projector (wrap it in cloth, paint it, build some kind of frame around it). It just bothers me there is no mechanical downside - it has more damage than the dedicated flame projector and doesn't have the heavy encumbrance. It seems like the devs let this one slip past.

Thanks again for current and any future feedback - it's appreciated.

This isn't a point based balance game. The dev's didn't make a mistake here. They did balance the attachment with the in game costs of ownership. All the factors on the item stats are part of the balance equation.

You, the GM are a vital part of the balance equation too. If you haven't been caring about enforcing the restrictions of an item, you are making it OP.

This isn't a point based balance game. The dev's didn't make a mistake here. They did balance the attachment with the in game costs of ownership. All the factors on the item stats are part of the balance equation.

You, the GM are a vital part of the balance equation too. If you haven't been caring about enforcing the restrictions of an item, you are making it OP.

I actually find the bulk of the system pretty balanced, which is one of the reasons I was drawn to it.

That said - I haven't been the exclusive GM (this particular attachment wasn't acquired in my game). Even as a player I find the situation annoying.

Well, you can always have a Rival or Nemesis enemy with the Bad Motivator talent deal with the attachment.

If you are looking at a "Waahoo" action game, players getting gear willy nilly Borderlands style (which can be fun as hell); just run with it. Make ammo hard to come by.

And if it gets abused too much... give them to the npcs.

Well, you can always have a Rival or Nemesis enemy with the Bad Motivator talent deal with the attachment.

If you are looking at a "Waahoo" action game, players getting gear willy nilly Borderlands style (which can be fun as hell); just run with it. Make ammo hard to come by.

And if it gets abused too much... give them to the npcs.

I'll look up that talent right now - it's not one I've used before. I've considered trying to justify some sort of mechanical 'the fuel is hard to come by' but to date he hasn't even treated it as a requirement. It's treated no differently than a blaster.

Thanks

Also, it is a flame thrower which suggests a tank of fuel. Have a few shots hit close to the 'fuel', if he still doesn't take the hint then maybe have a despair or two have the fuel tank hit, he takes damage as if hit. Either that or have an NPC bad guy with one and demonstrate with a stray shot or grenade basically blowing the bad guy to kingdom come.

Regarding him disguising it, you should rule it using the concealment rules on page 153 of the EoE CRB. I would also treat the weapon as if it were a number of encumbrance points equal to Cumbersome rating higher.

E

Get creative, but don't be punitive. The weapon isn't something you need to put the hammer down on, it's something you need to treat realistically by portaying it's chaotic nature. No more and no less should be used to balance out it's powerful attack.

First, remind him it's a terror weapon. Second remind the REST OF THE PARTY it's a terror weapon, and let them know they're in the same boat as him when things get bad.

When the item is recognized for what it is;

When he visits the cantina, his butt gets kicked out straight away. Nobody wants to get their shop burned down in an altercation.

Other professional mercenaries/criminals deride him for carrying such a dangerous weapon.

Surround him with the company of people who *would* use terror weapons.

In civilized space, the local police or garrison will get called.

If he uses it in a factory or starport, there's a good chance it'll ignite combustable materials or fumes. This can cause immense collateral damage.

If he uses it onboard their starship, the fire can spread and cause suffocation, which is an immediate and horrifying reality in space. At best, the fire suppression system will go off, and he'll be adequately "suppressed" as will his flamer. The nature of such suppression is up to you, but messy and distracting foam is a good start. Worse, blast doors come down and the atmo gets vented into space. Absolutely worst, fire suppression fails to go off (or fails to stop the fire, because it's not designed to fight chemical fire) and the whole ship is in danger.

Also, fire is bad, fire spreads, and people who are on fire tend to run screaming and catch other things on fire.

Used judiciously, the flame thrower isn't a problem, but it shouldn't be his standard go-to. Consequences abound if it is.

The worst thing about flamers is that depending on something so innocent as wind strength (or if you're standing right in the middle of a bunch of flammable material yourself), you can literally kill yourself by firing the weapon. If you sell it to your player as a double-edged sword (the wind is at his back means increased range, the wind in his face means the flames backfire) you may not even get any complaints. Dito on the combustable environments. If the player is smart, this can work for them, but, it should never be without its own inherent risks. The important bit is not selling it to them as a flamer nerf, but that you're going to experiment with making environments more "interactive" and "realistic" and "hopefully fun".

A flamer used in a fight as a "terror" weapon may not work either. Trained foes, or people in armour that canonically protects against flamers (stormtroopers being the most prominent example) may simply decide to shift their target priorities to drop the most noisy, flashy foe first, which is the fellow with the flamer. Animals, on the other hand, are likely to flee...and perhaps even stampede, which can be good or bad, depending on the situation.

The 'under-barrel flame projector' attachment has damage 10, crit 2, burn 5, blast 2. It does the same damage as a heavy blaster rifle and only needs the 2 advantage to then set an opponent on fire to take another 10 damage per round (without an attack roll, or occupying the PCs action) for 5 rounds (or else taking his action to put out the flames). This combination seems more potent to me than the alternatives.

What bugs me more are the stats when compared to the stand-a-lone Flame Projector. This attachment takes up 2 HPs when added to a 6 Encumbrance rifle. It DOES add Cumbersome, but no Encumbrance. It's small enough to fit "under barrel". Yet, it has 2 more points of damage then the full-sized weapon of 6 Encumbrance. It also has Burn 5 while the much larger stand-a-lone weapon has Burn 3. The only thing it is weaker in is the Blast of 2 (versus 8). Was the Flame Projector later adjusted during Beta then they forgot to adjust the attachment?

A house rule might be appropriate - Damage 8, Burn 3, Blast 8 (like the projector, or even less?), but then give it Limited Ammo 3 - only 3 squirts due to the small tank under the barrel.