How many Active / Incidentals can you do per turn?
Active / Incidentals
Depends on which ones, please elaborate.
Incidentals are technically unlimited, but the GM has allowance to say when enough is enough. That shouldn't mean that a GM should decide that there will only be 5 incidentals per turn forever , but they should disallow incidentals when a player is going overboard.
Most talents that are incidentals will state once per round, anyways. But again, the GM always has the final say as to if something is reasonable.
But if the PC has multiple DIFFERENT talents that allow an active incindental, as long as it made sense and wasn't redundant, I'd allow it... within reason.
"Active" implies action, which implies and Action, which is generally one. However, the pirate is right, we need more info. As for incidentals, F&D p205 has a paragraph that pretty much says what we're saying: unlimited, within reason.
Some require specific circumstances. Some require a DP. Like I said, depends.
And not to mention. We're talking about a nebulous unit of time here. It all boils down to what makes sense and what doesn't. So to quote the pirate. "Depends[TM]"
How about the talents True Aim and Natural Marksman
Incidental 1: Set to stun
Incidental 2: Set to kill
Incidental 3: Set to stun
Incidental 4: Set to kill
Incidental 5: Set to stun
Incidental 6: Set to kill
Incidental 7: Set to stun
Incidental 8: Set to kill
Edited by Yaccarus2 minutes ago, Yaccarus said:Incidental 1: Set to stun
Incidental 2: Set to kill
Incidental 3: Set to stun
Incidental 4: Set to kill
Incidental 5: Set to stun
Incidental 6: Set to kill
Incidental 7: Set to stun
Incidental 8: Set to kill
I imagine this is how HK-47 sings himself to sleep.
38 minutes ago, Yaccarus said:Incidental 1: Set to stun
Incidental 2: Set to kill
Incidental 3: Set to stun
Incidental 4: Set to kill
Incidental 5: Set to stun
Incidental 6: Set to kill
Incidental 7: Set to stun
Incidental 8: Set to kill
Depends on the blaster - does it have a thumb switch? Or maybe there's a slight delay while switching "applications" for the blaster. Honestly, I'd allow a player to waste time doing that exactly once.
48 minutes ago, LordEnforcer said:How about the talents True Aim and Natural Marksman
Sure. True Aim just modifies the Aim maneuver and NM is a reroll once/session. Those are fine.
12 hours ago, Yaccarus said:Incidental 1: Set to stun
Incidental 2: Set to kill
Incidental 3: Set to stun
Incidental 4: Set to kill
Incidental 5: Set to stun
Incidental 6: Set to kill
Incidental 7: Set to stun
Incidental 8: Set to kill
GM: *Flips Destiny Point* Huh. Seems like your blaster is stuck on "Stun". You should get that looked at. After this combat.
Edited by panpolyqueergeek17 hours ago, themensch said:"Active" implies action, which implies and Action, which is generally one. However, the pirate is right, we need more info. As for incidentals, F&D p205 has a paragraph that pretty much says what we're saying: unlimited, within reason.
Actually “active” implies a choice rather than “passive” which something that is typically always in effect.
I typically allow an unlimited number of active incidentals that modify a particular action. The PC spent the XP on these talents, so why not? As a GM, I may limit the number incidentals when it comes to distinct motions (avoiding the term action to avoid confusion).
For Example, a PC wants to peak around the corner to see an enemy (incidental), whisper to his team (incidental), drop his vibrosword (incidental), quick draw his blaster (incidental), set it to stun (incidental), aim as an incidental at a short range target with his electronic sighting system (incidental), aim for a second boost (maneuver), and finally fire (action). A GM might think that’s a little too complex and rule all those incidentals constitute a single maneuver. It’s debatable and totally up to you.
8 minutes ago, OriginalDomingo said:Actually “active” implies a choice rather than “passive” which something that is typically always in effect.
I can see why one could think of it that way. It's a matter of scope, which we haven't really been given.
13 minutes ago, themensch said:I can see why one could think of it that way. It's a matter of scope, which we haven't really been given.
Totally agree. You’re right by the RAW (just double-checked) that active requires some sort of action to activate but goes on to spell out what type of action is required (Incidental, Maneuver, or Action). Not exactly precise language.