So with the equipment book just announced, I thought it was worth asking for some opinions on the basics of gear. As you may or may not know, Genesys massively reduces gear bloat by limiting HP (items usually have HP equal to 1/2 encumbrance) and completely eliminating the "optional mod" thing that SWRPG has going. I think this has some real benefits

The main issue I have with SWRPG gear is that it is insanely powerful when modded, even far more than games most people consider crunchy like D&D or Pathfinder. Consider that a heavy blaster (7) can effectively be modded to 12 damage without a great deal of fuss.* This is almost double damage ! And of course, lightsabers are just as bad or worse. This makes a game that is already basically rocket tag (aka whoever hits first wins) even more lethal.

I am debating whether the solution to this issue is to allow the Genesys approach or to simply eliminate mods that add damage to weapons. In other words, players adding slings and sights and stuff to their weapons is cool, but the big problem is that the +damage mods are 1) almost always going to be chosen and 2) too good. I think combat is better off with slightly less damage most of the time (especially lightsaber duels).

Any thoughts?

*for clarity, this is 10 damage and 2 pierce

Different approaches would be appropriate for different games.

If you're running a high-combat game, I could see the "everyone is a glass-cannon" thing being a big, ever-present problem, and your proposal would be one way to try to fix it (though I would go with the "eliminate the modding of attachments" route, not "eliminate all damage-modding attachments or mods").

If you want the prospect of combat to be something that your players don't just welcome without thought, then you should probably keep the more powerful mods in your game (though of course, never arm your NPC with something that you don't want your PCs ending up with...). Just use/enforce "in-world" illegality rules more diligently, and just general community policing - it may not be illegal/get you thrown in jail outright, but you're gonna draw a lot of attention, maybe earn some harassment even being taken in for questioning.

But all in all, there are exploits/power-bloat everywhere in the system outside of gear, and particularly in the F&D lines. I think the best solution is to talk as a group about it, and to come to a mutual agreement to not play that game.

Removing attachment modding is probably the easiest and most elegant solution without completely redesigning stuff, yeah. It would drastically reduce damage bloat but still keep combat lethal enough that it doesn't take forever.

27 minutes ago, TyrisFlare said:

Removing attachment modding is probably the easiest and most elegant solution without completely redesigning stuff, yeah. It would drastically reduce damage bloat but still keep combat lethal enough that it doesn't take forever.

Or you can just start having equipment lost and destroyed. This isn't an MMO, that blaster isn't magically bound to the player.

Modding is great, but it can also be credits and effort better spent on other things. Blowing 6,000+ Credits plus on modding a 700c Heavy Blaster Pistol that will just disappear when 3 advantage/threat causes it to be dropped into the ocean isn't a wise use of credits.

I mean, warn the players you'll run the game that way, but there it is...

I personally prefer to fix the rules rather than rely upon fiat. I mean yeah, sometimes gear will get destroyed. But I personally think that is a poor way to handle most issues.

Destroying gear is dangerous. I'm not saying I'd never do it, but it would be rare. Often times a high powered heavily modified piece of equipment is as much a part of the character as any other element. I've had players that would rather me kill their character than separate them from their unique item. To that end, gear modding is kind of cool. The universe has some ways to remove these items. Restricted items, local law enforcement, casinos and cantinas having no weapon rules or limiting the types of weapons one can carry. So there are ways to limit it...but if done too much it becomes an obvious crutch to remove that item from play. Having them captured and unable to access their amazing weapon is another option, but again, can't be used often.

Honestly, when we just had the EOTE core book, the weapons selection was a little thin. Modifications almost seemed necessary. Now however, with the number of options out there, and the ever growing selection of powerful mods, there is a definite issue at hand. Especially when coupled with a character that builds themselves to really min-max to an extreme. Couple it with some specs that offer additional HPs or upgrades, coupled with skills...and having the player roll is just a waste of time. "Look, instead of rolling 5 yellow, 1 green, 3 blues, and 2 purple, and then having to figure out your result and do the math on how many times you autofired for double digit damage...how about I just agree to remove two entire minion groups each round and we just keep this moving."

Possible solutions:

1. No mods. There are plenty of options for every weapon group now, and they all differ slightly in characteristics. People can have some flavor and be different without carrying mini death star lasers in their pockets.

2. 1 mod. Every weapon has 1 HP. You get one attachment that you can mod. Choose wisely. People can tweak their weapons in one critical way. Do I need damage, or to reduce crits, or a better chance to hit?

3. Base mods only. The real power tends to come from the upgrades you can do to mods, not so much the mods themselves. This maintains the ability to mod stuff and make it personal, and still accounts for the HP differential to weapons (some weapons have fewer HP but built in mod bonuses), but removes the excess. BAM=+1dmg, +1setback (more damage, but risky). Upgraded BAM=+3 damage, +2pierce, +1 setback (thats +5 potential damage!). ASB = +1dmg, +1setback (more damage, but risky). Upgraded ASB= +3dmg, +1 accurate, +1 pierce, +1setback. MME= -1 crit rating (extremely powerful in and of itself). Upgraded MME= -1 crit rating, +2 pierce. In each case, the base mod is interesting while the upgraded version is incredible. Added bonus, this balances HPs that don't have upgrades with those that do which might mean a little more variety.

Any of those work. For a short 2 or 3 session one off adventure, option 1 is probably the best. For anything else, I think option 3 really shines.

Attachments without Mods is the Genesys approach and I greatly prefer it over the SW approach.

Yep, I like the idea of base mods only upgrades are what make them ridiculous. We ran an age of Rebellion game and no one was modding and the weapons stayed balanced. My current edge of Empire game we have a tech and his crafted weapons are better than others, and over the top once modded out.

For lightsaber since they are suppose to be special I like the extra mods from the crystal but limit the upgrades to 1 upgrade. Versus the hard points..

I'm against limiting or eliminating mods on attachments. Modding one of the biggest uses for the Mechanics skill, if not the biggest overall, with crafting coming in second. You're basically robbing a huge part of what makes playing characters like the Sentinel/Artisan , Guardian/Armorer , Technician and Engineer fun and worthwhile as character options.

I agree with Tramp. I feel like if you want to do anything go ahead and damage the weapons constantly. Like the superior attatchment to me should always be a temporary thing just a few uses of the weapon will wear that down. Even a modded weapon should occassionally suffer the "inferior" debuff from continued use. I say give more uses for mechanics not less.

I like the whole mods/attachments aspect and realise that yes some can become very bloated. It's not become such as issue in the group I GM for as the mechanic of the group has failed to mod attachments on a number of occasions that this helps.

23 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm against limiting or eliminating mods on attachments. Modding one of the biggest uses for the Mechanics skill, if not the biggest overall, with crafting coming in second. You're basically robbing a huge part of what makes playing characters like the Sentinel/Artisan , Guardian/Armorer , Technician and Engineer fun and worthwhile as character options.

I'm not sure I agree. Those trees tend to have things that add soak to armor, or add HP to weapons, or whatnot. Having someone good at mechanics is valuable in ship/vehicle maintenance. Mechanics tends to be extremely handy from an adventuring standpoint. Those specs still have big strengths. The trees have little to do with mods.

The benefit of restricting mods is killing munchkin, powergamer, min/maxer style of play.

Another possible solution which would address Tramp's issue, and address the original problem would be restricting modding to your own equipment. Now the engineer still gets to mod his stuff to crazy amounts, but the soldier is going to be restricted unless he also devotes time and effort to mechanics skills (which then creates its own problem as it could reduce the rest of the advantages of having a mechanic in the group). Part of the problem is that the mechanic's upgrade powers aren't limited to the mechanic. He can turn a basic riot rifle into a platoon slaughtering uber weapon for the soldier with low int and no mechanical training.

Keep in mind though, no one is asking for a change to the rules here. Someone identified a problem they had with the system and asked for house rule suggestions.

43 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

I'm not sure I agree. Those trees tend to have things that add soak to armor, or add HP to weapons, or whatnot. Having someone good at mechanics is valuable in ship/vehicle maintenance. Mechanics tends to be extremely handy from an adventuring standpoint. Those specs still have big strengths. The trees have little to do with mods.

The benefit of restricting mods is killing munchkin, powergamer, min/maxer style of play.

Another possible solution which would address Tramp's issue, and address the original problem would be restricting modding to your own equipment. Now the engineer still gets to mod his stuff to crazy amounts, but the soldier is going to be restricted unless he also devotes time and effort to mechanics skills (which then creates its own problem as it could reduce the rest of the advantages of having a mechanic in the group). Part of the problem is that the mechanic's upgrade powers aren't limited to the mechanic. He can turn a basic riot rifle into a platoon slaughtering uber weapon for the soldier with low int and no mechanical training.

Keep in mind though, no one is asking for a change to the rules here. Someone identified a problem they had with the system and asked for house rule suggestions.

A few talents, like Inventor, would probably need some reworking if Mods were restricted or eliminated.

I would have been ok with Inventor working like Utility Belt, only instead of pulling out a previously unrecorded bit of gear, you reveal a previously unnoticed attachment on an item that lasts until the end of the encounter before becoming useless.

41 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

I'm not sure I agree. Those trees tend to have things that add soak to armor, or add HP to weapons, or whatnot. Having someone good at mechanics is valuable in ship/vehicle maintenance. Mechanics tends to be extremely handy from an adventuring standpoint. Those specs still have big strengths. The trees have little to do with mods.

The benefit of restricting mods is killing munchkin, powergamer, min/maxer style of play.

Another possible solution which would address Tramp's issue, and address the original problem would be restricting modding to your own equipment. Now the engineer still gets to mod his stuff to crazy amounts, but the soldier is going to be restricted unless he also devotes time and effort to mechanics skills (which then creates its own problem as it could reduce the rest of the advantages of having a mechanic in the group). Part of the problem is that the mechanic's upgrade powers aren't limited to the mechanic. He can turn a basic riot rifle into a platoon slaughtering uber weapon for the soldier with low int and no mechanical training.

Keep in mind though, no one is asking for a change to the rules here. Someone identified a problem they had with the system and asked for house rule suggestions.

I will say I have not found adding HP to weapons to mean a whole lot when there are like 4HP on most ranged heavy weapons as is and I struggle to find enough attachments to use all those hard points already. I mean HP only matter if you can use them. I personally would also add lots of wear and tear to modded or I guess the correct term would be modded attachments. This means that either new attachments must be bought or the mechanic must fix them on a regular basis adding more work for your out of combat specialists if the combat specialist wants to maintain his equipment. I personally have this wear down less in times when the weapons are not in use or are not in bad environments this sometimes can give my players an incentive to leave their best gun behind when going into nasty weather areas that they expect lighter resistance instead choosing to take equipment they mind losing less.

On 5/10/2019 at 11:49 AM, TyrisFlare said:

I personally prefer to fix the rules rather than rely upon fiat. I mean yeah, sometimes gear will get destroyed. But I personally think that is a poor way to handle most issues.

Well this is a thing that is covered by qualities for weapons and armor and also in suggested use of advantage/threat and triumph/despair. As @Ghostofman said it's not an MMO, and the characters are hopefully more than a basic avatar + indestructible and permanent gear in gear slots on the paper doll.

Also deciding that there will be no mods is a meta-fiat phenomenon. You are still arbitrarily saying there will be no mods.

I'm no fan of power gaming. But I think that the rolls to mod and therefore create exceptional weapons, along with the rarity mechanic, are a good way to have an alternate to rolled treasure tables. So if you just want to play the game with stock weapons then that's your prerogative of course.

On 5/10/2019 at 1:12 PM, kmanweiss said:

I've had players that would rather me kill their character than separate them from their unique item . To that end, gear modding is kind of cool. The universe has some ways to remove these items.

First off, I thought your suggestions were great and helpful Kman. This bold line though is a sticking point for me. I'm trying to think of a character from the movies that would just be no good without their specific piece of gear and without it they are useless and not worth watching any more.

I have seen this before in my past games and I even did it once as a player when I was a sprout. It's essentially a temper tantrum. The player simply won't accept the loss of this item. This to me is a form of Player Forecasting : what I call the phenomenon where the player is attempting to control the narrative shape of the game in some manner, usually by applying social pressure on the GM. In this situation I have the anti-terrorism playbook in effect and I tell them to go ahead and detonate. They are in turn free to vote with their feet.

Where does it stop? You can't take my weapon, you can't kill my character, you can't make me take a critical for that! To me the GM has to be free to apply consequences and story elements as they would occur according to their judgment, and players need to be able to get out a pry bar and get some air between themselves and their love affair with a piece of imaginary gear.

On 5/11/2019 at 8:32 PM, damnkid3 said:

Yep, I like the idea of base mods only upgrades are what make them ridiculous. We ran an age of Rebellion game and no one was modding and the weapons stayed balanced. My current edge of Empire game we have a tech and his crafted weapons are better than others, and over the top once modded out.

For lightsaber since they are suppose to be special I like the extra mods from the crystal but limit the upgrades to 1 upgrade. Versus the hard points..

I think the Crafting in its various forms in this game can be abused or at least used to bad ends. The very special weapons frequency can be throttled by requiring special material and components that are the star wars equivalent of The Breath of a Gorgon. If you make the components the object of a quest or otherwise inject time and investment into the upgrade process a lot of the would-be Mod Gods will just say nah. They want an easy way to get super gear that does not involve adventuring to get it, and took the Specialization mainly for that purpose.

As for lightsabers, I never understood the idea that a lightsaber by itself is not good enough. For some reason it needs to be able to apply concussion and disorient.

21 hours ago, Archlyte said:

First off, I thought your suggestions were great and helpful Kman. This bold line though is a sticking point for me. I'm trying to think of a character from the movies that would just be no good without their specific piece of gear and without it they are useless and not worth watching any more.

I have seen this before in my past games and I even did it once as a player when I was a sprout. It's essentially a temper tantrum. The player simply won't accept the loss of this item. This to me is a form of Player Forecasting : what I call the phenomenon where the player is attempting to control the narrative shape of the game in some manner, usually by applying social pressure on the GM. In this situation I have the anti-terrorism playbook in effect and I tell them to go ahead and detonate. They are in turn free to vote with their feet.

Where does it stop? You can't take my weapon, you can't kill my character, you can't make me take a critical for that! To me the GM has to be free to apply consequences and story elements as they would occur according to their judgment, and players need to be able to get out a pry bar and get some air between themselves and their love affair with a piece of imaginary gear.

I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, I just wouldn't do it often. In star wars such a character doesn't exist. Everyone is pretty resourceful even outside of their comfort zone. But in other movies such a thing occurs. Tony Stark is useful outside of combat without his suit, but needs it for anything tougher than programming a computer. Thor while incredibly powerful loses a great deal of his capabilities when he no longer has his hammer or axe. Captain american is somewhat limited in combat effectiveness without his shield. Hawkeye is basically nothing without his bow (or sword I guess). Take an amazing character's main weapon away and they don't stop being awesome, but they are certainly hamstrung a bit when given a normal blaster.

Recent funny story. I have a player that is a bit of a power gamer. Still very good at RP, so it's not that big of a deal, but the rest of the party doesn't focus on combat so it makes things lopsided.

Anyways, the group stopped at a small village to talk with the leadership there, but the villagers requested all heavy weapons to be left at the gate. 2 players unaffected, 1 player leaves an unmodded blaster rifle there without consideration, the player in question has an unmodded blaster rifle and then this uber blaster rifle that is modded to an extreme. He questions the guards about how the weapon will be stored, will it be secured, can he get a receipt. It's a small village of ramshackle huts...so they just prop it by the gate against the wall. He starts telling everyone in a panic that it's gene-locked (it's not), so don't bother trying to use it because it won't work due to the gene lock. A few feet into the village we pass some people just sitting outside their hut and he's repeating the gene-lock comments. The rest of the group is **** near crying at how paranoid the character is being.

1 hour ago, kmanweiss said:

I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, I just wouldn't do it often. In star wars such a character doesn't exist. Everyone is pretty resourceful even outside of their comfort zone. But in other movies such a thing occurs. Tony Stark is useful outside of combat without his suit, but needs it for anything tougher than programming a computer. Thor while incredibly powerful loses a great deal of his capabilities when he no longer has his hammer or axe. Captain american is somewhat limited in combat effectiveness without his shield. Hawkeye is basically nothing without his bow (or sword I guess). Take an amazing character's main weapon away and they don't stop being awesome, but they are certainly hamstrung a bit when given a normal blaster.

Recent funny story. I have a player that is a bit of a power gamer. Still very good at RP, so it's not that big of a deal, but the rest of the party doesn't focus on combat so it makes things lopsided.

Anyways, the group stopped at a small village to talk with the leadership there, but the villagers requested all heavy weapons to be left at the gate. 2 players unaffected, 1 player leaves an unmodded blaster rifle there without consideration, the player in question has an unmodded blaster rifle and then this uber blaster rifle that is modded to an extreme. He questions the guards about how the weapon will be stored, will it be secured, can he get a receipt. It's a small village of ramshackle huts...so they just prop it by the gate against the wall. He starts telling everyone in a panic that it's gene-locked (it's not), so don't bother trying to use it because it won't work due to the gene lock. A few feet into the village we pass some people just sitting outside their hut and he's repeating the gene-lock comments. The rest of the group is **** near crying at how paranoid the character is being.

That story was awesome

I'm a bit ambivalent about the comparison to Marvel characters because while I agree and would maybe say someone like Starlord from the movies is similar in that he has some signature gear, I really don't see Star Wars characters as super-powered characters. I see them as being closer to regular types who are in extraordinary circumstances but with the Force giving nudges here and there. Cap without his shield is gonna have a hard time with a powerful villain but Cap is fine without his shield if facing normal humans in armor.

So I guess if the campaign is characterized by the PCs having to fight Sith lords and Ultra Assassin droids that are basically like Marvel Villains then yeah I can see the PCs being more dependent on their special gear. But if they are fighting stuff that is more like Storm troopers, the occasional tough Bounty Hunter, or dangerous creatures that normal blasters can kill then I think that they don't really have a lot of ground to justify the over-modded gear obsession.

Also you can get the thing where the players push for progression and gear upgrades until they force the GM to start having Thanos have to show up so that they can be in combat for longer than 2 rounds. If the GM wasn't into the idea of running a super hero power game that How did we get here moment sucks. A remedy is to start exposing that equipment to the risk of being stolen or destroyed, or you can just cancel the game.

On 5/13/2019 at 1:55 PM, tunewalker said:

I will say I have not found adding HP to weapons to mean a whole lot when there are like 4HP on most ranged heavy weapons as is and I struggle to find enough attachments to use all those hard points already. I mean HP only matter if you can use them. I personally would also add lots of wear and tear to modded or I guess the correct term would be modded attachments. This means that either new attachments must be bought or the mechanic must fix them on a regular basis adding more work for your out of combat specialists if the combat specialist wants to maintain his equipment. I personally have this wear down less in times when the weapons are not in use or are not in bad environments this sometimes can give my players an incentive to leave their best gun behind when going into nasty weather areas that they expect lighter resistance instead choosing to take equipment they mind losing less.

I’ve had just the opposite experience. I never have enough hard points for all the attachments I want for a lightsaber or for a suit of armor (one of my starting characters is Mandalorian, and you know how decked out a suit of Beskar’gam can get).

To be clear, no one is saying 0 mods, just no optional extras on existing mods. Also Mechanics is still insanely useful given that you can craft far better items than you can buy in many cases.

But anyway, the Allies and Adversaries book is pretty much this game's bestiary, which means (presumably) that characters should be balanced against it. If characters have fully powered weapons - something that doesn't even cost that much - they can pretty easily murder their way through a lot of those adversaries, even the supposedly super powerful lore characters.

But just to reaffirm my position, my problem is mostly with damage, not necessarily other stuff. Making a weapon sling more effective is one thing, but doubling the damage of a weapon is a big problem for a higher XP game imo.

53 minutes ago, TyrisFlare said:

To be clear, no one is saying 0 mods, just no optional extras on existing mods. Also Mechanics is still insanely useful given that you can craft far better items than you can buy in many cases.

To be clear, I am saying 0 mods. You are confusing mods with attachments. When you say "existing mods" you mean attachments.

Also, if I'm dumping the broken side of mods, why would I ever allow the broken AF crafting rules?

Mechanics without mods and crafting is still as useful as Computers or Medicine.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I’ve had just the opposite experience. I never have enough hard points for all the attachments I want for a lightsaber or for a suit of armor (one of my starting characters is Mandalorian, and you know how decked out a suit of Beskar’gam can get).

I have to agree with that. When decking out weapons/equipment with attachments and/or mods, there is always a wishlist of stuff I want but can't fit on the item. That's where some of the tech classes can get a leg up on others.

17 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

To be clear, I am saying 0 mods. You are confusing mods with attachments. When you say "existing mods" you mean attachments.

Also, if I'm dumping the broken side of mods, why would I ever allow the broken AF crafting rules?

Mechanics without mods and crafting is still as useful as Computers or Medicine.

Okay, terminology issue I guess?

Genesys has "Attachments" (e.g. blaster actuating module) where you could add +1 dmg and +[SE] to a weapon, which seems like a fair trade. However if you mod the attachment, you can add another +2 dmg and +2 pierce which is where the problem lies, imo.

I feel like the crafting rules are far less broken if attachments aren't as good.

18 hours ago, TyrisFlare said:

To be clear, no one is saying 0 mods, just no optional extras on existing mods. Also Mechanics is still insanely useful given that you can craft far better items than you can buy in many cases.

But anyway, the Allies and Adversaries book is pretty much this game's bestiary, which means (presumably) that characters should be balanced against it. If characters have fully powered weapons - something that doesn't even cost that much - they can pretty easily murder their way through a lot of those adversaries, even the supposedly super powerful lore characters.

But just to reaffirm my position, my problem is mostly with damage, not necessarily other stuff. Making a weapon sling more effective is one thing, but doubling the damage of a weapon is a big problem for a higher XP game imo.

I have no problem with the damage creep from modifying attachments either. My signature character’s lightsaber (with cyclic crystal array, among other attachments) has fully modified Mephite and Kimber Stone crystals, with the Superior hilt and Extended hilt attachments as well, regardless of which crystal is active, I’m dishing out 13+ points of damage. When you’re facing Dark Siders in with Cortosis Weave, you need that extra damage potential.

47 minutes ago, TyrisFlare said:

Okay, terminology issue I guess?

Genesys has "Attachments" (e.g. blaster actuating module) where you could add +1 dmg and +[SE] to a weapon, which seems like a fair trade. However if you mod the attachment, you can add another +2 dmg and +2 pierce which is where the problem lies, imo.

I feel like the crafting rules are far less broken if attachments aren't as good.

I don’t see that as a problem.