So, my players recently got ahold of some old Skytroopers , and refurbished them for use. I was wondering if there are any pitfalls I should be aware of with the jetpack rules for when these guys come into play.
Jetpacks
Wearing a gear jetpack is able to move through Piloting (Planetary), count as vehicle, and all that derived from it.
Related question... the fluff on jetpacks speaks of very short range, yet I've found nothing in the crunch to reflect this. Has there every been any statement by the devs to clarify this discrepancy?
Jet pack rules are really bad, and we had a lot of discussion about it and how to rule them.
3 hours ago, ErikModi said:So, my players recently got ahold of some old Skytroopers , and refurbished them for use. I was wondering if there are any pitfalls I should be aware of with the jetpack rules for when these guys come into play.
Remind them just because something can go X velocity, that might be a really F-ing horrible idea, or not even possible. A Ferrari can go fast as F, but not in Manhattan.
Also show them the pilot check results tables, crash outcomes, and remind them of the fact they are the vehicle with a jetpack, so their faces are both the bumper and airbags.
Then finally show them the falling damage chart, and all that together should instill some caution in their use of them.
49 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:Related question... the fluff on jetpacks speaks of very short range, yet I've found nothing in the crunch to reflect this. Has there every been any statement by the devs to clarify this discrepancy?
I'd really love to run an Ace: Driver who specializes in flying a jetpack. Maybe add Rigger or Modder down the road to soup the jetpack up more. But you're right: Despairs on the Piloting roll could be interpreted as "out of fuel" and cause all sorts of bad things to happen, as 2P51 suggests. Maybe a better second spec would be something with talents to mitigate falling damage...
Like all ammo and fuel stuff … best handled by the narrative dice in this system.
3 hours ago, 2P51 said:Remind them just because something can go X velocity, that might be a really F-ing horrible idea, or not even possible. A Ferrari can go fast as F, but not in Manhattan.
Also show them the pilot check results tables, crash outcomes, and remind them of the fact they are the vehicle with a jetpack, so their faces are both the bumper and airbags.
Then finally show them the falling damage chart, and all that together should instill some caution in their use of them.
Well, the players aren't the ones with the jetpacks, the Skytroopers are. They're droids, and the packs are built-in.
I read that you're treated as a vehicle and so on, but I'm not really clear what that means. What can a character-treated-as-a-vehicle do that a character and/or vehicle cannot?
4 minutes ago, ErikModi said:Well, the players aren't the ones with the jetpacks, the Skytroopers are. They're droids, and the packs are built-in.
I read that you're treated as a vehicle and so on, but I'm not really clear what that means. What can a character-treated-as-a-vehicle do that a character and/or vehicle cannot?
This is where the rules don't provide guidance player/vehicle combat. I also don't treat someone as a vehicle wearing it, that's what the rules say.
There isn't anything beyond where something can physically fit in regards to vehicles/players and where they can fit, it's more common sense. In regards to movement, while a player wearing a jetpack might be able to move at vehicle speeds, that likely is very impractical in the middle of a gun fight in some conditions. It's too hard to say 'always this' and 'never that', because each situation is going to be so dependent on where a given engagement is taking place. I think that's why the rules didn't try to be too crunchy because it would likely cause more questions than it answers.
So. . . don't really worry about it. Got it.
Pretty much, what worx for you, worx for them.
18 hours ago, SavageBob said:I'd really love to run an Ace: Driver who specializes in flying a jetpack. Maybe add Rigger or Modder down the road to soup the jetpack up more. But you're right: Despairs on the Piloting roll could be interpreted as "out of fuel" and cause all sorts of bad things to happen, as 2P51 suggests. Maybe a better second spec would be something with talents to mitigate falling damage...
Technically speaking, a jet pack (or the rocket boots for that matter) is a piece of gear that allows a person to function as a vehicle but not an actual vehicle for the purposes of Signature Vehicle and its related vehicle upgrade talents.
It would be funny though to see a PC make use of Fancy Paint Job when wearing his jetpack to the market or job interviews... "You know, I was going to hire Dengar, but then that guy walked in. Oh man, did you see that sick racing stripe on his jetpack? Only a top ranked bounty hunter could have that much style."
1 hour ago, OriginalDomingo said:Technically speaking, a jet pack (or the rocket boots for that matter) is a piece of gear that allows a person to function as a vehicle but not an actual vehicle for the purposes of Signature Vehicle and its related vehicle upgrade talents.
It would be funny though to see a PC make use of Fancy Paint Job when wearing his jetpack to the market or job interviews... "You know, I was going to hire Dengar, but then that guy walked in. Oh man, did you see that sick racing stripe on his jetpack? Only a top ranked bounty hunter could have that much style."
Why wouldn't it be a vehicle that you could apply Signature Vehicle to? That may be your ruling as a GM, but I could just as easily see it going the other way. At my table, the Rule of Cool would win out. I mean, why veto a fun character concept?
1 hour ago, OriginalDomingo said:Technically speaking, a jet pack (or the rocket boots for that matter) is a piece of gear that allows a person to function as a vehicle but not an actual vehicle for the purposes of Signature Vehicle and its related vehicle upgrade talents.
It would be funny though to see a PC make use of Fancy Paint Job when wearing his jetpack to the market or job interviews... "You know, I was going to hire Dengar, but then that guy walked in. Oh man, did you see that sick racing stripe on his jetpack? Only a top ranked bounty hunter could have that much style."
3 hours ago, SavageBob said:Why wouldn't it be a vehicle that you could apply Signature Vehicle to? That may be your ruling as a GM, but I could just as easily see it going the other way. At my table, the Rule of Cool would win out. I mean, why veto a fun character concept?
It's certainly a house rule, and the GM should reserve the right of revocation or revision of it gets ridiculous, but I've never had issues with allowing players to make their jetpacks into signature vehicles. It's a significant investment of XP and credits for that schtick.
4 hours ago, SavageBob said:Why wouldn't it be a vehicle that you could apply Signature Vehicle to?
Armor +1, HTT +1 would be a rather good reason
On the plus side: You are still acting AS vehicle, so signature abilities, defensive driving, etc should all still work. ;-)
I would still be totally for it. Compared to just using a shield remote the extra armor and hull trauma threshold is not that problematic as it sounds at first.
38 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:Armor +1, HTT +1 would be a rather good reason
I would rule that this just makes the jetpack super heavy-duty. Doesn't do anything to you during combat.
7 hours ago, SavageBob said:Why wouldn't it be a vehicle that you could apply Signature Vehicle to? That may be your ruling as a GM, but I could just as easily see it going the other way. At my table, the Rule of Cool would win out. I mean, why veto a fun character concept?
I just prefer to play RAW to avoid future unforeseen arguments with players of where the boundaries of common sense apply. The character concept is still valid, however, because you can use the many other cool piloting-related talents with the jetpack.
On 2/11/2018 at 8:57 AM, OriginalDomingo said:Technically speaking, a jet pack (or the rocket boots for that matter) is a piece of gear that allows a person to function as a vehicle but not an actual vehicle for the purposes of Signature Vehicle and its related vehicle upgrade talents.
It would be funny though to see a PC make use of Fancy Paint Job when wearing his jetpack to the market or job interviews... "You know, I was going to hire Dengar, but then that guy walked in. Oh man, did you see that sick racing stripe on his jetpack? Only a top ranked bounty hunter could have that much style."
I would totally allow a player with signature vehicle and fancy paint job to use fancy paint job on his jet pack. Tony stark used it on the iron man suit (iron man 1, added red so the suit wasn't all gold colored, the alloy to solve the icing problem was gold colored) and the nearest equivalent is a drop suit (it's in no disintegrations) which I think technically IS a vehicle.
BTW if the player took larger project enough times to have left over silhouette, I'd let them use the leftover silhouette on another vehicle, for example a sil 4 freighter and a drop suit.
Edited by EliasWindriderBut how do you rule an Armor +1 jetpack? Not even a Droideka can soak 10 damage.
Is like a flying invincible metal box that withstands a nuclear blast! if you can hide inside...
1 hour ago, Rithuan said:But how do you rule an Armor +1 jetpack? Not even a Droideka can soak 10 damage.
Is like a flying invincible metal box that withstands a nuclear blast! if you can hide inside...
A single lightsaber strike will still destroy it. It's basically just resistant to small-arms fire.
The Armor +1 and the HT/ST bonuses would be for the Jet-pack itself in case it is targeted.
2 minutes ago, Jareth Valar said:The Armor +1 and the HT/ST bonuses would be for the Jet-pack itself in case it is targeted.
Drop Suits are full cover.
Besides, I have seen Wookies with more Soak than you get from Armor 1, so it is not as bad as it sounds, but still quite ... heavy.
3 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:A single lightsaber strike will still destroy it. It's basically just resistant to small-arms fire.
If a jetpack user gets into lightsaber range, he is doing it wrong. Stupid mandalorian duel traditions, I rather have a Heavy Shatter Gun and a 1300m distance ;-)
Edited by SEApocalypse8 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:If a jetpack user gets into lightsaber range, he is doing it wrong. Stupid mandalorian duel traditions, I rather have a Heavy Shatter Gun and a 1300m distance ;-)
That's all well and good until I Force-leap at you and do my Hawk-Bat Swoop...or saber throw...or Draw Closer...
2 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:That's all well and good until I Force-leap at you and do my Hawk-Bat Swoop...or saber throw...or Draw Closer...
Force Leap does not cover extreme range at all. So enjoy your fall after the first jump to long range. And no, you are not in close range after you covered long-range to an extreme range target, so Draw Closer does not pull me with you.
QuoteRange Upgrade: Spend ☯ to increase the maximum
range the user can jump by the number of Range upgrades purchased. The user may not activate this multiple times. Remember that the user must still spend
Force points to activate the power’s actual effects
And even if you would have something mid-air to do your second force leap, the rules get a little iffy at what range you are actually to your target when jumping to long-range in direction to a extreme range. Might be long-range, might be still extreme range, extreme has a rather wider span which seems larger than long-range itself. The system would let the GM decide this based on the situation. Double force leaping over one kilometer mid-air? I guess I might allow it in the middle of coruscant traffic, but in the middle of nowhere like Mandalore. Nah.
