So a character wants to replicate Mr. Torgue. For the life of me, I can't find where land mines, C4, Symtex, etc. would cover? Skullduggery for traps? Gunnery for munitions?? Anyone tackle this yet?

Explosives could be Mechanics for an Int based character and Skullduggery for a Cunning character. Though I think Mechanics is where those sort of characters live in Star Wars.

If you wanted to make it more detailed, you could use both. Mechanics (int) to build the explosive. Skullduggery (cunning) when placing and hiding it with good results giving bonus to the later Mechanics attack check.

Explosives have nothing in common with mechanics. I wonder what made you think that ? And working with explosives is a matter of knowledge not guessing, you learn how to make it and you learn how to use it. Then for Genesys it's always Intellect and never Cunning or another characteristic.

Just now, WolfRider said:

Explosives have nothing in common with mechanics. I wonder what made you think that ? And working with explosives is a matter of knowledge not guessing, you learn how to make it and you learn how to use it. Then for Genesys it's always Intellect and never Cunning or another characteristic.

So, Knowledge (Explosives)?

30 minutes ago, ElderKoala said:

So, Knowledge (Explosives)?

Yes. It's better to have a skill than a talent because the more experienced you are, the less you'll blow yourself up while using explosives. And the better you are to disarm explosives devices.

Solid work for me.

Knowledge (Explosives). Make Explosive. -> Mechanics. Turn Explosive into Sophisticated Device. -> Skullduggery. Turn Sophisticated Device into Hidden Trap.

That thought pattern make sense to everyone?

2 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Explosives have nothing in common  with mechanics.

Yet RoT still suggests using Mechanics for most crafting, instead of inventing a slew of specific skills. Regardless, what skill to use (or whether to create a new skill) should depend upon setting.

If explosives deserved their own combat skill in the setting, I would call it Demolition. Otherwise, I'd call for Skulduggery to set up an explosive to be used in combat.

Depending on setting or conditions, creating explosives might call for Alchemy/Chemistry (Fantasy/Modern) or Mechanics (Space Opera). However, unless the campaign is going to focus heavily on manufacturing as a player activity, there's no benefit to introducing a lot of granular subskills for crafting. They'd just be an XP tax for playing the crafter.

Either way, one could introduce a recipe-book mechanic to control who can craft what. Using recipes has the fringe benefit of making it easier to reference what skill(s) a crafter would need in their campaign, and how skilled they need to be to craft any given thing.

5 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Explosives have nothing in common with mechanics. I wonder what made you think that ? And working with explosives is a matter of knowledge not guessing, you learn how to make it and you learn how to use it. Then for Genesys it's always Intellect and never Cunning or another characteristic.

Do you mean Skullduggery because Mechanics is an Int based skill.. So I am confused by this statement. I may be understanding the characteristics wrong. intellect is a character's natural ability to learn/remember/recall facts and information generally from books and formal instruction. It is linked to skills that require more of a technical knowledge. (Alchemy, Computers, Mechanics, Medicine) Cunning is a players natural ability to perform something through experience. Having experience with something can show a certain level of training or instruction too. While a classic instructions wouldn't be there some sort of training or learning could still be there through experience. The Cunning skills help reinforce this to me. To me the difference between Int and Cun is the difference between Street-smarts and Book-smarts. How many SWRPG games have allowed a Streetwise roll instead of a Knowledge (Underworld/Outer Rim) roll?

Also I guess I should have said that Skullduggery would naturally be a harder roll. However I would still allow it. Mechanics being based on Int would mean to me the character has book learned knowledge of the skill. Skullduggery is more life experience knowledge of said skill. The character using Skullduggery may be missing a digit (or two) or had only been shown how to make a simple explosive. While a Mechanic would be able to make a more complicated device in a shorter amount of time. I could see Alchemy being used to make explosive flasks in a fantasy setting.

The road map of having different skill checks for the different stages is also a great suggestion. This is what I like about this system. It allows the players and GM to be creative with how they are going to tell their story.

If a setting warrants it it may certainly be worth having a knowledge (explosives) skill, or some similar mechanic for making it a specialist area the average character would lack without specific ability (if I tried to diffuse something I'd probably end up in A and E, or worse, so your players may need to know what they're doing to have a decent chance of not ending up very ouchy-hurty or dead.) You could add clarifications that there are various ways they could push their luck (cut the red wire and hope), or get help in some way, remember also finding an expert's another approach. In a setting like Android maybe they could find it online or hack it somewhere, with obvious associated risks. Local /available knowledge!

The core rule book has some things you could adapt- grenade p154/184-5, meteops p161, missile/rocket launcher p167/175/185, cannon p184. If your specific setting needs aren't covered you may need to create game elements for a range of things- items, skills and talents for them (or selecting existing skills/talents needed or beneficial to them), characters or locations that may be a means of getting or learning about them, gear that protects from them or deals with them and so on. Remember things like the fact rats have been trained to deal with landmines, there are also robotic options, so think of the less obvious that may suit your setting. Maybe the pc's need to make use of military personnel or similar in some way. In certain settings a force field (p186) may protect from some of these threats. So think creatively about where these elements of your game appear.

Lots of possible ways to handle surviving things like mines so you can also see what your players come up with (think about things like do they know the risk's there in advance or do they find out the hard way, etc, and how this affects gameplay, remember some of these things are very unpleasant- some players may not want the detail to get too graphic/upsetting, others may be happy with the gritty, brutally honest realism of the situation, so it's one where it's worth knowing your players, so set the tone to suit.)

I'm having some fun with fireworks being sold at a festival for one of my modules, with a range of effects from dazzling an enemy to injuring them to startling them to just distracting them for a bit with ooh look at the pretty lights.

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 1:28 PM, WolfRider said:

Explosives have nothing in common with mechanics. I wonder what made you think that ?

RAW. The books from FFG that we've been reading and using.

Mechanics is used for demolitions in FFG Star Wars and it has been listed as the "crafting" skill in Genesys. There are statements in RAW (rule as written) for using Mechanics such as, "The use of explosive compounds and devices requires a Mechanics check" (SW version), and "this skill may cover smithing and crafting" or "Use this skill if...your character needs to build an item.." (Genesys).

Unless you think you have to add a new skill, you could simply add a talent required for explosives to be used with whatever skill you already have and think is the best for your setting (Mechanics/Crafting, Alchemy, etc).