Venthrac said:

The bounty hunter in my game was the only one to not get extra obligation for money, and it honestly made it a little hard for him to purchase Ranged (heavy) weapons. However, the good side was he went with a slugthrower and has basically turned his character into a cowboy.

Sturn said:

Yeah, I don't actually have a problem with the dual wield rules myself - in fact I actually like them. Pretty much all iterations of dual wielding in every system I've ever played had traded accuracy (in terms of penalties to hit) for additional damage if you roll well and manage to score an extra hit. The rules in EotE are 100% consistent with that - just like in D&D/Saga or the W40k rpgs, characters who aren't specialised in melee fighting with 2 weapons should *expect* to miss more often when dual wielding, but to occasionally have a spectacular success - if anything, I feel the EotE system is less punishing than other systems I'm familiar with. One additional difficulty die isn't that crippling, and trading 2 [adv] to essentially double your damage output is a good trade. Sure, it's not as good as autofire (which largely uses the same rules but reduces the [adv] cost), but I think the general consensus on that is that it's too good and needs to be toned down.

The main problem I had with melee combat (combat in general really) is that the damage values just felt a bit too low, given how high the soak values were (then again, the unarmoured PC dropped pretty easily, so maybe it's just a problem with the specific PCs and NPCs - who admittedly were meant to be heavily armoured bounty hunters…)

Hey Gribble,

Great writeups, thanks much! You should consider taking all your bold-faced sentences and breaking them out in a separate post as core feedback items. Such a list would be a quicker read and perhaps more acessible for the designers.

I like how you handled charging. The only change I would personally make is to either make it cost some Strain to charge, or perhaps to add a Boost die to attacks made against the charging character until the start of his next turn, to reflect the fact that the charger is recklessly going all-out on offense, and thus ignoring his own self-defense.

On the whole, these writeups have been very informative and exposed some areas where the game could still use some work. This makes me glad we're getting the chance to beta the game.

Again, kudos and thanks for the work you're putting in.

Venthrac said:

Yeah, if the PCs weren't already in such a bad way, I probably would have done the same (most likely granting opponents a [boost] die to attacks against the charging character). To be honest though, the PCs kind of needed all the help they could get in this one, so I didn't mind just making it an advantage for them.

That's one of the things I really like about this game - both of these (granting the PC a [boost] die to his attack, and granting opponents [boost] dice to their attacks) are just applying the rules a written, i.e.: giving character's [boost] die for advantageous situations, and don't require a special rule for charging. Makes things really easy to put together on the fly, which suits my style of GMing…

I always felt like WFRP3E's greatest strength was supporting narrative through flexible mechanics. I am very glad ot see the same system make it into a Star Wars game, because I think it's a great fit.

Last night was a short session to wrap up Crates of Krayts:

Again - SPOILERS BELOW

The session began with the heroes leaving Nar Shadda with Sinasu and the Crates aboard. After a bit of healing by the medic, repairs on the ship and looting of the captured bounty hunters, the ship's sensors spotted the two cloakshape fighters closing. There was general disappointment expressed at the healing/repair rules. Both times only 1-2 points were healed, which seemed kind of a let down. Admittedly the medic hadn't really specialised in it, rolling 1 ability and one proficiency die (plus a boost from his medkit). The mechanic however was much more specialised - maybe it was just a bad roll, but it also happened a second time (see below). The PCs even expressed that it wasn't really worth having a medic in the party as stimpacks were so much better, despite the cost and limited-use nature. Perhaps healing/repair needs a bit of buffing? Maybe heal/repair a number of wounds/trauma equal to the medics/mechanics Int plus extra successes, rather than 1 plus extra successes? Or would that make optimsed healers/mechanics (which the healer wasn't but the mechanic is at least somewhat) too good?

As the YT-1300 the group flies only has range short sensors, I ruled that the combat started at short range. I used the starfighter wing (minion) rules, and they seemed to work pretty well. I was hoping to get an opportunity to use the chase rules, but it didn't eventuate (see below).

The player's ship started off at speed 2, and the pilot was a little frustrated he couldn't do any of the "cool" maneuvers. Even when he sped up to speed 3, he couldn't even attempt to gain the advantage. It also seemed really weird that you had to be travelling fast (at least as fast as his ship could) to "stay on target", which seems like it should be easier the slower you go… The pilot did manage to keep himself busy accelerating/moving/angling shields and (eventually) taking evasive action. Perhaps the speed restrictions on the starship maneuvers need another look, or at least some further maneuvers/actions added that can be taken by slower ships? After all, the PCs will usually be starting with a speed 3 ship…

Gererally the other PCs found actions to keep them busy which was really good - much better than pretty much any other "startship combat" that I can remember in a RPG. I did have one player ask a couple of times if they could act as "co-pilot" and also execute pilot-only maneuvers. I pointed him to the co-pilot starship action, but it wasn't really what he was looking for (particularly as the pilot wasn't really making any rolls - just maneuvering - so upgrading his next check wasn't going to achieve anything). Perhaps the co-pilot should also be able to use (perhaps limit to one?) pilot-only maneuvers? Perhaps only with a successful check?

The cloakshapes managed to hit the PC ship with concussion missiles that did a bit of hull trauma to the PCs ship - around 8 - enough to worry them, but not enough to put them in serious danger. The PCs gunner got one hit on the cloakshapes as well, doing 5 points to them. Mechanically, that all seemed to work pretty well, although there was a weird string of rolls where 3 attacks in a row (PCs attack with first ship gun, cloakshape's first attack, PCs attack with second ship gun) either hit or missed and generated a threat, resulting in the weapon going offline for a round. Hilarity ensued as the gunner ran up and down the YT-1300's central ladder each round between out of commission guns…

The mechanic again tried to repair the ship (I ruled that this was a separate encounter from the first repair, which occurred effectively at the end of the second encounter). He again got a modest result (around 2-3 hull trauma repaired, which seemed pretty underwhelming for a relatively good result on something he could only do once).

The PCs actually ended up finishing the combat with two really weird dice rolls. Both were failed rolls, with a lot of advantage and/or triumph symbols. The first was a coerce check, where a couple of the PCs had the hostage bounty hunters in the airlock, and threatened them to call off the figthter. I ruled that although the leader wasn't cowed, the pilots of the fighters had the commline open to their boss and were directly influenced instead. The second was a mechanics check to boost the shields (which came up failed with two triumph!), which we all kind of scratched our heads at for a bit until someone suggested that the shields flared up and looked as though they were acting on overpower, even though they weren't. I ruled that both results combined resulted in the cloakshapes breaking off pursuit. While it was cool that these sorts of checks could have that result in a combat encounter, it took a while for us to puzzle though an in-game explanation for the rolls and it seemed a little weird that the encounter was ultimately resolved/defeated by two failed rolls…

Overall, short but enjoyable. There were still a few weird bits where the dice results didn't really seem to fit into either the narrative and/or the results were counter-intuitive to what we expected (i.e.: two failed rolls ultimately winning the day). I think that is probably our biggest gripe at the moment - the results of the rolls just don't seem to match up with what we expect - either in terms of story or game. We all agreed to continue the campaign for a while - at least a second adventure which I now have to prepare…

One thing I forgot - Tor Cordell has "light battle armor (+1 def, +1 soak)". This isn't in the rules… is it meant to be armored clothing? Or something else like armored clothing, with a higher cost and presumably more Hard Points (and/or built in functions like heavy battle armor)?

Excellent writeup, Grib. I really enjoy reading these and I think they are great insights into the game. I hope the designers are following these posts closely, as this information is invaluable.

A few quick thoughts/reactions…

Good insights on the healing/repair rules. I wonder if they were deliberately kept weak to reinforce the tenuous nature of life on the Outer Rim. Sure, stimpacks are better, but stimpacks cost credits and the characters in this game will probably not be rolling in money very often.

I guess "Stay on target" is maybe intended to represent a pilot's efforts to stay in firing position behind an enemy who is swerving, banking, dodging and generally trying to avoid getting shot at. Maybe that's why a slow ship would be less effective. I remember playing X-Wing back in the day, where if I slowed down too much, the enemy ship would be able to circle around behind me. It's really all just a big abstraction, but I understand why it works that way.

FWIW, I like the way you interpreted the rolls, especially the failures. In my opinion, your instincts were spot on: you kept the story moving forward in epic, heroic fashion and I'm sure everyone had more fun as a result. You could always make the heroes pay for turning failures into success by allocating Strain to the charaters or ship, flipping Destiny points to the Dark Side, or with a story rationale. Say, for example, that the shields burned out after their "flare-up" and now they need to be fixed, which will cost credits or obligation.

The dice are there to help guide the game, but you are the ultimate arbiter and can ignore them or change them if it will make the game better. Remember, you can also extend that same courtesy to NPCs when you need your evil boss to trap the PCs or to do something awesome and scray and then he rolls horribly. It all comes out in the wash, really, and as long as the game is fun, who cares?

First of all, thanks for the recount. Very insightful, especially as I'm about to tell that part of the story over the weekend.

I have a few questions about the repair skill. Maybe you guys could help me figure this out.

gribble said:

Page 163 of the rulebook states that repairing hull integrity (hull trauma) costs roughly 500 credits per point. 8 points of haul trauma means 4000 credits worth of repair. Quite expensive considering that the adventure's reward is 5000 credits. Is the repair cost only to be used when the players are paying for somebody else to do the repairs? (i.e.: Nobody has the mechanic skill.)

I'm confused on how the mechanic skills functions regarding ship repairs. P. 77 states that additional success on a mechanic checks reduce the repair time by 10-20%. The beta updates explains that advantages obtained whit a repair check may grant boost dice when using the repaired item. P.162-163 only lists repair costs and time. I can't seem to find the rules for figuring out how much hull trauma can be repaired with a single mechanic check. Are we to assume the mechanics skill works the same way as on droids ? Are we to take into account the x10 scale modifier?

I also have a question about brawl/melee damage. I can't retrieve where in the book it is explained that you add a weilder's Brawn to brawl and melee weapon damage.

Thanks for any input.

Aazlain said:

It's not entirely clear, because it's spread between some poorly worded rules in the main book and the updates, but essentially a PC can make a check, once per encounter, to repair damage done during that encounter (a "first responder"kind of thing). Successes equal amount of hull trauma recovered, and advantages equal amount of stress recovered. They can check as many times as they like to recover stress using the same rules.

The rules you're referencing are for repairing any hull trauma beyond that. As I recall, the rules as currently written don't allow PCs to repair this damage, but I'd probably allow it at half price (for raw materials, etc).

Aazlain said:

Can't give you a page reference, as I don't have the rulebook handy, but I believe it's in the equipment section where it describes what the damage values for melee weapons mean.

gribble said:

Harsh. I was hoping I missed the some rules covering this. Chances are that every starship encounter will result in a multi-thousand credits loss in the PCs' budget. I will have to take that into account. House ruling is also always a viable option, as you said. I would if one of the designer could chime in and clarify this point.

gribble said:

Still can't find the rule. I know it must be there. This is driving me crazy. Hopefully the final book will be more concise, with less repetition and scattering.