Callidon said:

It's weird that you censored the word "chin" there.

The Missing Range Band?

In a current Play by post I am participating in, I have adopted a gunslinger type motif for the character I am using. As such, I have elected to acquire a slugthrower pistol. Like the only other item in Table 5-5: Ranged and Gunnery Weapons on page 110, the Ionization Blaster, the Slugthrower Pistol has a range of Short . The range bands detailed on page 135, however, do not include this. Furthermore, neither weekly update to this point appears to address this matter.

Please advise.

It should read Close, probably.

That is what I would like a clarification on. Still, considering the typical, effective range for a modern slugthrower pistol, eg. Beretta 92FS, I would expect the distance to exceed that of the 'Close' range band.

angelicdoctor said:

Close, i.e. several meters, seems awful short for a slugthrower to me. I take a modern slugthrower, my Beretta Px4, to the range and it seems that seven meters is easy. In fact, at my preferred pistol range targets are placed at 3 yd, 7 yd, 15 yd and 25 yd positions. Considering that 7 meters is but 22 feet (a little longer than 7 yards), I would think that Close is not nearly far enough to be an effective range category.

angelicdoctor said:

[shrug] Then make it Medium.

Better yet - playtest them both - and see what works. This is the beta, afterall.

angelicdoctor said:

I'm thinking the slugthrower pistol should be Medium range and the ionization blaster be Close range myself.

While a slugthrower pistol is a whole lot cheaper than a basic blaster pistol or even a light blaster pistol (akin to a sporting blaster pistol from SWSE), it does far less damage, has a worse Crit Rating, no hard points (so no modifications unless you've got an Outlaw Tech willing to add modification slots), and no special qualities. In light of that, I thinking giving the slugthrower pistol the same range as a hold-out blaster (which is well-noted for having a crappy range in exchange for its' extremely compact size) is unnecessary.

As for the ionization blaster (or Jawa gun), we really only see it working from a rather short distance in the movies (when poor Artoo gets fried in ANH), and it pretty much takes him right out (high damage rating). It's got a heck of a damage rating compared to a standard blaster pistol, leaves the target disoriented for quite a few rounds. It is only useful against droids though, so unless your hero is facing down a bunch of Clone Wars-era combat droids, it's not going to be all that useful, which probably informs why the weapon is as cheap as it is.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Your arguments made sense. You are probably right. I hope your range suggestions make the final cut.

As noted elsewhere, if the range band changes for the pistol then it should logically follow that it should for the rifle as well, one perhaps even increase two range bands.

LethalDose said:

On page 137, it explicitly states the it does wound damage, but you can choose to do strain damage instead.

@SergeantVau: Thanks. The source of the confusion wasn't that we couldn't find the text on p.137, but instead was due to inconsistencies between that text and other text in the book. Figured it was typical beta issue, but wanted to check with the people who wrote it.

The question was answered by FFG_Sam Stewart a few hours after it was posted, 2 posts down from my question.

-WJL

I don't know if this has been caught yet, but there is an inconsistency about the strain cost of taking an additional maneuver:

Pg 129 "He may also perform a second maneuver by voluntarily suffering two points of strain." Under Maneuver Limitations.

Pg 141 "The most common use is to voluntarily suffer one point of strain to gain one additional maneuver during a character turn" First paragraph on the page below the sidebar.

I presume pg. 129 is correct, but this needs to be made consistent.

-WJL

Little concerned with the high damage in combat, while it is rather hard to die getting knocked out is very easy. And recovering from wounds is pretty slow. 1 point a day natural or 1 every two hours with a batca tank. I think it may be worthwhile to make this recovery faster. Exspecially if wounds are more scraps bruisesnand near misses while criticals are the actual bone breaking injuries.

This coupled with a large group of minions having a very high effective skill makes combat rather rough.

Either issue on there own isn't a big deal but together it makes planning the pc's are captured scenario a frequent occurrence

Thinking an alternate wound system could be considered, such as take a crit to reduce wounds by some amount.

How much do you want to risk to keep fighting sort of thing.

Or having players recover some or all wounds at the end of each encounter, leaving medicine for emergency aid in an encounter and tending Crits after combat.

That way the doctor tree is still very useful.

adrick said:

There is an alternate system: Avoid combat unless its the only option or characters have the advantage.

Combat needs to be downright deadly and a risky undertaking to really put some fear into the players. This paradigm is a massive shift from the old d20 system, where everyone was a combat monster first, second, third, and then maybe had a few non-combat skills. For flavor.

Given that the players can invoke Deus Ex aka narrative changes by expending destiny points, there should be few situations where players can't avoid combat, or at least gain a substantial advantage, with some clever role-playing and skill use.

Also remember that squads of minions receive only one attack per group (unless you give them some linked quality), and there is a maximum on 5 ranks of skill. Its not explicitly stated that minions are subject to this rule, but, more importantly, its not stated that they are an exception to this rule either. Therefore, the only advantage produced by adding minions to a squad beyond the sixth is more wounds.

The healing rules are nice because wounds don't just disappear. I plan to use this in my group to make the players choose whether to heal up and take on a more reinforced foe, or attack when they aren't at their prime. Also, it gives wounded characters a reason to take on some obligation: Owe the alliance a favor for being allowed to use their medical facilities.

The Outer Rim is a dangerous place, but real, tangible risk has been missing from Star Wars RPGs for more than 10 years. Its time to give the players something to worry about again.

-WJL

I'm gonna disagree with you Lethal. I get that for you this is a flavor concern but I think what your missing is that in EotE combat really CANT be a small part of the game. I don't say that because I think every game needs to be a hack-and-slash or something but the fact is this game really only has rules for combat. Now that was important so I'm gonna say it again. This game only has rules for combat. Almost every non-combat skill, ability, or method of resolution is totally handwaved in this book. There isn't a "Negotiations" chapter or a "Chase Scenes" chapter or even a "Stealth" chapter. What their is is a Combat chapter. That means that as far as this game is concerned, when you are using this game and these rules you are concerned much more with combat than any of the previously mentioned methods of resolving conflict. This game isn't Diplomacy. It actually only basically covers killing your opposition. And this means people, when playing this game and these rules, will be killing their opposition a lot. Thus I think the fact that these rules are very very very deadly is a considerable concern, and that the suggestion to "Avoid Combat" is akin to saying "Don't use these rules", which while it might be a valid statement in itself, doesn't really belong in a discussion of this very rule system.

adrick said:

Or make it harder to be hit. Give more specializations access to defensive talents or use opposed rolls (I've said it before, but I think Cunning would make a good trait for ranged defense).

As it is, I see characters gravitating towards a few specializations with defensive talents, especially as they gain experience and face greater foes. If the idea was to make it so no ability was favored over others, well I think they just shifted the focus from a particular ability to particular specializations. Maybe even make it so characters can suffer strain to make a combat check against them an opposed roll, sort of like Dodge but not restricted to particular talent trees. Then even characters with a good defense from opposed rolls wouldn't be able to dodge forever.

And then as mentioned in other threads, modify strain so that once you run out, you don't simply pass out. Staggered is good.

I know it way too late for a change of this magnitude, but I personally think they should have gone even more narrative with their combat and expanded it to cover other forms of conflict as well. Forget wounds, strain, weapon stats and all that, not needed.

During a conflict, all sides involved would declare an intent or goal. From there skill checks would be made while attempting to achieve these goals and would direct the narrative of the conflict. Successes would obviously go towards the immediate intent of the skill check, as well as accomplishing the overall goal. Advantage and Threat would largely work as normal providing incidental benefits and setbacks. Failure would invoke consequences appropriate to the action taken and situation. For a simple example, failing at laying down some cover fire for your allies might either involve your character drawing some return fire and having to retreat and lose some ground or your allies take a penalty to their next action. Maneuvers wouldn't be necessary as you should just award boon and setback dice based on the narrative.

Anyway, just some rambling thoughts of mine. I just feel that for a narrative game, the combat still feels a little too 'gamey'.

Star wars is just as much about combat as it is about talking.

I can't agree with just avoid it, the films start and end with a battle. Its pulpy and action packed even more so in some of the EU. The only person that avoids conflict in new hope is C3PO who can fast talk better than Han.

However I do agree combat should't be the only or even first option and it should't be without risk.

People don't get hit in star wars but when they do it hurts and hurts bad.

So more defense edges in the specialties would be good Exspecially if wounds are actual injuries. But to me Crits are the big thing, I'm fine with them as they are presented. Healing times and all. They represent the getting hit hurts. Are relatively easy to get and can get you killed. If you push your luck.

But wounds are on one hand described as close calls and combat fatigue but on the other hand treated as serious injuries that take a week to heal without a very skilled doctor. if they are only a near miss then it should recover quickly, maybe be renamed. If they are real wounds then defense should get a boost. Or at least minion skills reduced. The storm troopers have no business missing as much as they do in the movies if they are at skill 5 from group bonus.

The strain to oppsed roll is a good idea/compromise. At the very least a side bar with tweak suggestions should be included, such as plus 1 skill for every two extra minions or fast recovery options. So people can salt to taste.

Seadaily what you want is a game called "Shock: Social Science Fiction". It's very good. It could do a Space Opera setting as well as lots of other things but something that narrative doesn't really belong under the Star Wars brand. Star Wars as a franchise is primarily about laser's shooting and stabbing people as a form of conflict resolution.

deanruel said:

I've read your post in its entirety, and cited the relevant parts. I'd appreciate if you would extend me the same courtesy, and actually read more than two words I wrote, because all you seemed to get from it was two words "Avoid combat".

This isn't a "flavor concern". It's a play-style concern. In the d20 system, the players were discouraged from finding any means to solve a problem OTHER than combat. It took so much firepower to make the characters even blink after lvl 10 in Saga Ed for character who were even mildly optimized, it just became stupid. Basically, the players were taught that the quickest path between two plot points was a straight line that led straight through combat, because combat had practically no lasting consequences. This is a massive design flaw that permeated practically every d20 system released by WotC since just after the their "Modern" line was released and it has bred an unfortunately successful pedigree of "kick in the door & consequences be damned" players.

In the new system, these players will find this stratagem to be much less effective. And it will be painful. To quote an oft ignored dark Jedi Master:

"… pain is the one teacher no one will ignore."

-Master Joruus C'baoth, Dark Force Rising

And it needs to be painful. For the exact reason I've cited above. Combat needs to reach up, and grab your players by the lips and YANK AS HARD AS IT CAN!!! There have been two spectacular demonstrations of my players getting their obnoxious asses handed to them when they made sh*tty & reckless decisions "for teh lulz" regarding combat. The situations could have been easily handled with a bit of planning, or easily avoided. I sure can't say "avoided" first, because that word apparently makes you stop reading. There is no longer a straight path between plot points, because now combat is a large enough obstacle that other options are at least considered , and with a narrative system where the players are able to contribute to the story via destiny points, they can find their own solutions!!! The fact is, if you blunt the risks of combat, you are discouraging your players to explore different possible solutions. Doing so is detrimental to the game.

And for almost every firefight in the OT, you can find just as many examples of the characters avoiding combat through narrative :

• Fight our way out of the detention block? Nope, too dangerous, "Into the garbage chute, flyboy!"
• Take out the maimed wampa? Nope, too dangerous even though he's only got one arm because I already got the **** beat out of me.
• Out-fight the TIEs and escape through the asteroids? Nope, too dangerous, "at least we can outfly them" & hide in a cave/space slug.
• Out-fight more TIEs? Nope, still too dangerous. Latch onto the side of a Star Destroyer instead and wait till they dump their garbage.
• Fight your way into Jabba's palace with your saber, wookie, princess-in-disguise and inside agent? Nope, too dangerous, try to bargain with Jabba.
• Blow open the door to the bunker with the AT-ST? Nah, its easier for them to open the door for us.

If combat wasn't risky, the characters wouldn't have bothered to avoid it. But because it was risky and finding an alternative was a better option, we get some of the best storytelling and most memorable moments with the characters.

If you want, play with the kid gloves on in your game, and if you're able to manage to enjoy the souless series of rolls while your players beat the **** out of whatever you put in front of them, fine. But don't screw it up for everyone else who wants an interesting game by removing part of the incentive to try and find the options.

The risk and alternatives are part of combat, and this is the EXACT place it should be discussed! I never said "don't use these rules", or anything even remotely equivalent. There are going to be plenty of situations where combat absolutely is the best course of action. But its just ******* stupid to believe its the only course of action, or always the best course of action.

Oh, and as far as "hand-waving" goes and "don't use these rules", two points: First off, its beta. There's gonna be plenty of material to fill in the gaps that we simply don't need to stress test the system. Second, you really need to back and check your page count. Skills get a whole chapter, 20 pages long and less than 2 of those pages are for combat skills. The combat chapter is 18 pages long. If you think page count is equivalent to gameplay priority, these two are pretty close. How come when I say "consider trying to avoid combat", I'm telling people to ignore a chapter of rules, but when you say that combat is paramount, you aren't basically saying to ignore different rules…

-WJL

You have a point, Deanruel, and as I said, I know its too late to make such sweeping changes to combat.

If I were to give a more realistic change I'd like to see in combat, it would be how successful hits are handled against PCs (and important NPCs). The way minions and other enemies are handled works great, they should be dropping like flies, but I just don't think the way wounds are handled is very true to the source. I understand that wounds represent minor bruises and scrapes, but it still doesn't feel very Star Wars-y to me.

I guess the way I'd rather handle most successful 'hits' against PCs is more or less what Advantage is already doing. A successful 'hit' should seriously hamper a PC, but more dealing with the narrative I guess. When a PC is actually hit it should be something dramatic, which could be handled by a critical hit, not just a minor scrape or burn and a few Wounds. I'm not precisely sure how to handle this while keeping it separate from what Advantage is doing, or maybe combining them for enemies. Critical hits would still be possible by spending advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I still want combat to be dangerous, I just don't feel the largest threat should be from physical injury. I certainly want the players to feel a sense of impending doom when they're in combat. Perhaps successful hits would not only provide some immediate hindrance to the character(s), but also build up some kind of doom track as well that would more or less mean the bad guys won this round. For example, once the end of the track has been reached, the stormtroopers get enough reinforcements to be overwhelming and the PCs are captured, or they wasted too much time fighting over the contraband that the authorities showed up and now the PCs have to run and leave the goods or risk getting arrested.

To distill my viewpoint a bit, I just feel the danger to PCs in combat (and there should be plenty of danger) should only rarely come as physical injury, such that most hits on PCs should impose some other detriment besides injury.

LethalDose said:

NICE!

LethalDose said:

Agree 100%.

I'd say:-

Players hate running away. They really do.

And some players come to fight! You may not want to play like that, but I don't think the way to solve the issue is to try to get the rules to force players to act in ways they don't want.

Star Wars isn't, nor has it ever been, a "Hack 'n' Slash". Anyone who thinks otherwise should re-watch the movies. There should be equal parts of everything (Combat, Intrigue, Romance/Storytelling, Thinking **** out, etc…).

No one's saying that the players can't fight their way through but they shouldn't whine when they end up real dead, real quick. THAT'S Star Wars…..Fast, Hard, and Lethal.

If you think about it, people dropped like flies in the movies and the possibility of the Heroes dying was even implied when Leia gets shot (Return of the Jedi), she was put out of the fight. Another example, when Luke loses his hand (Empire Strikes Back), again the fight was pretty much over. He didn't go "Rambo" and keep hacking away at Vader. Like wise, when Luke returns the favor and takes Vader's hand (Return of the Jedi), even the bad ass that is Vader was pretty much out of the fight.

See 3 examples, off the top of my head, that showcase the quick and lethal quality of combat in Star Wars. So, the way the system presents combat as being fast, in-your-face, and uber-deadly is dead-on perfect with the feel of Star Wars.