So its been several years since I have run a Star Wars game but my group might be picking it back up again. When I ran it last, only some of the sourcebooks were out and Genesys was a ways off. Even though I have not been playing it, I have a serious collection addiction and own all the books that have been put out since. While we had a great time playing SW last time, I do remember there were some areas that would be kinda wonky, particularly space combat, and eventually the characters were high xp and specialized enough that it seemed like the probability curves melted a bit.

So what I am wondering is, in the years since we've played, have there been any house fixes to issues pretty much accepted by the community? For example I've seen GMPhil's Snap Roll maneuver and it seems widely accepted enough that it basically made into the Genesys book, and was planning on using that. I also see that there are some differences in the Genesys system that might be improvements that can be incorporated into SW. For example, PCs are capped at 5 characteristic where in SW it was 6.

I hope those of you who have been immersed in the system the last few years can point me in the right direction. Thanks!

The only official updates/fixes are those listed in the FAQ and the errata, both of which can be nabbed from the products page of the respective game line.

Genesys is it's own entity, and thus far things introduced there haven't made their way over to this game.

3 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

The only official updates/fixes are those listed in the FAQ and the errata, both of which can be nabbed from the products page of the respective game line.

Genesys is it's own entity, and thus far things introduced there haven't made their way over to this game.

Donovan thanks for jumping in as I remember you making a lot of good posts. I may have been to vague but what I’m looking for is finding out what sort of house modifications to rules have proved to be really helpful. I realize that there will not be one idea on that but those of you who have been playing the last few years will probably have some ideas like the ones I mentioned above.

It's not a codified house rule per se but I encourage a certain style of play at my table regarding interpretation of results. For example the "fluff" description of the effect of Triumph/Despair is that they are encounter changing but the "upgrade/downgrade a check" is really lame mechanically, especially as PCs increase in XP (and the mechanical effect diminishes in usefulness).

It's not for every Triumph/Despair but pretty regularly I (as GM) and players pull out something more spectacular for these results.

Some actual play:

Hawkbat swooped into range but missed your attack, but Triumph! Ok, this is the last opponent, can they be cowed and surrender? Sure, they even give you useful information they have (being part of a scouting party).

PC rolled a Despair in fighter combat? Uh, that's a component hit to (rolls d8...) your shields so they're off line as you clip the canyon wall until, you or your astromech can spend an action to fix (or the equivalent using Advantage/Triumph).

Epic encounter with Darth Vader. PC who'd already been slammed with an X-wing and was brought back up was going to get hit again with the same X-wing (which would down them for at least the rest of the encounter). Hey, I have this Talent which lets me introduce a fact as if a DP has been spent, can I say the X-wing was damaged enough from the first strike that it's now Sil 2? Sure. [PC had insane Soak so this was useful]

Later in same encounter (different PC), Vader is down and being carried away by Stormtroopers but you're not sure if he's actually dead. Ok, it's time to finish off Vader (make sure), I hawkbat swoop lightsaber attack Vader who's already taken a beating from me last round and I...MISSI WITH 3 TRIUMP!?!. Ok, the Stormtroppers were already dragging his body away and I land next to Vader and notice [introduce fact] he is in actuality dead dead dead. Great.

I like the engagement it brings to the story and details of the encounter and away from the tactical mechanical nitty gritty.

3 hours ago, Therian said:

Donovan thanks for jumping in as I remember you making a lot of good posts. I may have been to vague but what I’m looking for is finding out what sort of house modifications to rules have proved to be really helpful. I realize that there will not be one idea on that but those of you who have been playing the last few years will probably have some ideas like the ones I mentioned above.

Ah, sorry about the misunderstanding on my part.

Myself, I really don't have any house rules other than still using some of the species from the old Unofficial Species Menagerie (though most of those now have official versions by this point), and some tweaks to a couple of the F&D Lightsaber Form specs. I generally tend to run most of the game RAW, though I have heard of folks importing the Genesys vehicle combat rules into this game.

17 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Ah, sorry about the misunderstanding on my part.

Myself, I really don't have any house rules other than still using some of the species from the old Unofficial Species Menagerie (though most of those now have official versions by this point), and some tweaks to a couple of the F&D Lightsaber Form specs. I generally tend to run most of the game RAW, though I have heard of folks importing the Genesys vehicle combat rules into this game.

What tweaks to which FaD lightsabre form specializations, please?

47 minutes ago, Bellona said:

What tweaks to which FaD lightsabre form specializations, please?

You can read about them here. Just skip the first couple paragraphs to get to the meat of the post.

Ataru Striker, Soresu Defender, and Shii-Cho Knight saw the biggest alterations in how their talents were laid out, while Makashi Duelist got a tweak to one if it's core talents, and Shien Expert and Niman Disciple were left as-is.

https://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/search/label/Lightsaber Forms

I run things pretty much RAW, so my house adjustments are usually pretty focused.

Just a few I can think of:

- I use the Squad rules from the AoR GM Kit over the version in the Clone War books. GM kit version is easier to run, faster, and provides more benefits to the player in complex combat environment, where the CW version is a little easier to learn but has fewer options and is only more beneficial in simpler fights.

- I haven't had to yet, but I will tweak the armor inserts from Cyphers and Masks if a player ever moves on it. As an item it's a good idea, but it's description is clear as mud and it's mods make it potentially abusable.

- The RPS-6 missile launcher in CotR has a description and stats that better fit the PLX-1. A simple name change fixes that.

- Several vehicles have minor issues that can usually be fixed by adjusting a number or refitting a weapon. Typically the two big problems are 1) Weapons listed using a direct Wookieepedia entry->Table 7-1 adaptation. 2) Stats that prevent an action that occurred on screen from being possible. Newly statted vehicles tend to have this issue over older ones, but there's a few older ones that have that problem too. The Hutt Floater, BARC speeder, HMP Gunship, and AT-AP are four that really spring to mind, but there's a few more.

8 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

You can read about them here. Just skip the first couple paragraphs to get to the meat of the post.

Ataru Striker, Soresu Defender, and Shii-Cho Knight saw the biggest alterations in how their talents were laid out, while Makashi Duelist got a tweak to one if it's core talents, and Shien Expert and Niman Disciple were left as-is.

I'm pretty sure that you intended to put a link in there, but I can't find it.

While I've not put them into full play as of yet, I've also been working on some revisions of the Enhance, Move, and Sense Force powers.

For Enhance, I've rolled the first two Force Leap Control upgrades into a single upgrade, and ultimately leaving what would have been Row 5 in the power tree blank, as it frankly felt odd that the Force Leap ability was restricted to just one direction, and frankly felt more of a punitive thing that a PC had to buy two upgrades to be able to leap in any direction. I've also changed the wording a bit to allow for a PC to leap and engage an opponent with the same action (or maneuver with that upgrade), though my opinion is that the whole "you can't use Force Leap to engage" feels more like splitting hairs given that it revolves around very strict reading of the text.

For Sense, the change is to split the Duration upgrade in two (like how it was in the EotE Beta), but still keep the upgrades' cost at 10XP each, and both are linked to the Strength upgrade (of which there remains only one).

For Move, the biggest change is that I rolled the ability to hurl objects into the base power, however the difficulty for the Discipline check now starts at Easy (1 purple) and increases by one per point of the hurled object's silhouette, up to the general rules' established cap of five purples, which in turn means that the Force user is limited to a max silhouette of 4 with regards to hurling objects. This of course necessitated some shuffling of the other Control upgrades on that side of the three, moving the "pull objects from hands or secured mountings" down (and increasing the XP cost to 10), and replacing that spot in the tree with a Control upgrade that adds Disorient 1 to attacks made with hurled objects with a cost of 10XP. I considered having an upgrade to add the Knockdown quality, but I figured that's best handled by spending of advantages/triumphs.

4 minutes ago, Bellona said:

I'm pretty sure that you intended to put a link in there, but I can't find it.

Yeah, for some reason the link didn't take when I made that post. I've updated it to include the necessary link.

6 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

- I haven't had to yet, but I will tweak the armor inserts from Cyphers and Masks if a player ever moves on it. As an item it's a good idea, but it's description is clear as mud and it's mods make it potentially abusable.

Gears & Gadgets already cleaned that one up. The text is a bit clearer, in that the attachment turns the garment into a set of armored clothes, with the implication that any special traits the garment originally had (such as concealing robes' adding a setback die to checks to notice/recognize the wearer) being lost.

Personally, I may house-rule that the garment's original traits are kept, but that the cost and rarity are doubled. As is, that attachment is far too good for the cost, especially as a party with a Mechanics-savvy PC (especially one with the Inventor talent) won't have much problem getting most of the upgrades, allowing them to turn a set of heavy clothing into some pretty beefy armor at a cost much lower than the standard armored clothing.

1 minute ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Gears & Gadgets already cleaned that one up. The text is a bit clearer, in that the attachment turns the garment into a set of armored clothes, with the implication that any special traits the garment originally had (such as concealing robes' adding a setback die to checks to notice/recognize the wearer) being lost.

Personally, I may house-rule that the garment's original traits are kept, but that the cost and rarity are doubled. As is, that attachment is far too good for the cost, especially as a party with a Mechanics-savvy PC (especially one with the Inventor talent) won't have much problem getting most of the upgrades, allowing them to turn a set of heavy clothing into some pretty beefy armor at a cost much lower than the standard armored clothing.

I'll have to compare the entries.

Generally though I'm in agreement with you about how it should work. I want something that a player can add to a disguise to give them some extra survivability while keeping the disguise, not a cheat to get Armored Clothing or an invisible suit of combat armor.

The Genesys rules for social encounters are great, and I'd definitely poach them. You'll have to account for the fact that SWRPG PCs only have Motivations rather than the full spectrum of Fears, Desires, Strengths and Flaws, but you can give NPCs however many of those personality facets as you think they should have.

On 11/13/2019 at 11:20 AM, Talkie Toaster said:

The Genesys rules for social encounters are great, and I'd definitely poach them. You'll have to account for the fact that SWRPG PCs only have Motivations rather than the full spectrum of Fears, Desires, Strengths and Flaws, but you can give NPCs however many of those personality facets as you think they should have.

How do they compare with the rules I believe are in the Desperate Allies book? I know that there were some expanded social rules in one of the supplements.