Donovan Morningfire said:

For blast, I was commenting on the 3A for the miss condition. Even if you miss, the property still applies.

I can see your reasoning for most thrown weapons being "fire and forget." I was going to make a thrown-expert for a friends upcoming play test, but the decided lack of thrown weapons makes that a bit hard to do. What can I say, I usually play the odd character

-EF

LethalDose said:

Agreed. I like the flexibility this allows, and the escalating cost means most character's aren't likely to have more than 3 - unless very experienced - anyway.

LethalDose said:

Disagree. Remember that picking up a specialisation only grants additional class skills (reducing the cost by 5 per rank), it doesn't actually give you any skill ranks. So the escalating cost of specialisations, coupled with the diminishing returns (class skill wise) of picking up additional specialisations, means it'll most often be cheaper to just bite the bullet on the extra skill costs if you only want one skill. I've noticed the characters in my game already have most, if not all, of the class skills they want to improve with the 1-2 starting specialisations they have.

While I admit that FFG seem to have fixed a problem that "wasn't broken", I don't think it's necessarily a bad change and I assume FFG made the change for a reason (would be nice to know what that is though…).

I'll reserve judgement until I see the effects of the change in play.

LethalDose said:

LethalDose said:

Agreed. I think 2 Adv to activate seems right, given that one "hit" in this game isn't meant to represent one shot hitting an opponent once anyway. It's not the walking fire onto multiple targets that is the problem (both because that's inherently more difficult, and because it spreads out the damage), it's being able to easily stack 2-3 times the base damage of (an already high damage) weapon on a single character that causes issues mechanically.

LethalDose said:

Agreed. Ditto for the damage avoidance talents allowing difficulty upgrades instead of setback dice.

Also like the droid changes. The equipment sidebar was needed, and the rules changes tie into the "specialist" role, without being overpowering.

Also noticed: Lightsaber now has Breach again, but there isn't a rating. I assume it's meant to stay as "Breach 1"?

gribble said:

I think you should look at the numbers before you say it'll be cheaper to get one skill out of class. See below:

• Buying one career skill from 0 to 5 ranks = 15*5 = 75
• Buying one non-career skill from 0 to 5 ranks (old system) = 15*5 + 5*5 = 75+ 25 = 100
• Buying one non-career skill from 0 to 5 ranks (new system0 = 15 * 10 = 150

[There are 15 skill ranks to buy going from 0 to 5: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15]

So where before , it was approximately a wash to go go from 0 to 5 ranks via out-of-career vs buying a new career and then getting ranks:

• 0-5 ranks out of class (OOC): 100 XP (see above)
• 0-5 ranks after new spec (assume 20 XP for new spec): 75+20 = 95

And for 0-4 it WAS 70 OOC vs 70 when buying the new spec, so the equilibrium point was fairly high.

But under the new system:

• 0-5 ranks OOC: 150 XP
• 0-5 ranks after new spec (assume 20 xp for new spec): 95

The equilibrium point happens between rank 2 (new cost OOC 30 pts, New spec + 2 ranks: 35 XP) and rank 3 (60 pts OOC vs 50 pts with new spec).

This is a problem because before, players paid a slightly increased cost to improve OOC skills, but didn't feel compelled to tack on new specs to do so. Now, the savings can be 35 XP for just one skill [it should be clear how much crazier it gets with multiple skills]

This is a problem because so few classes have combat skills. Under these new rules, players will feel compelled to buy a combat spec to keep up on combat skills. This wasn't an issue before, because the cost of buying a new spec just wasn't worth it. The character didn't get some of the bells and whistles in the form of combat talents, but they could still be effective with a weapon type of their choice in a "non-combat" spec.

-WJL

I'm a bit of two minds when it comes to the price increase of specialisation and (non-career) skills.

First off the removal of the limited number of specialisation makes it "cleaner" and more tidy - at least on the surface. This had to be followed by an increase in price, in some way or another. I wonder if one should track career and non-career separately, like someone has already suggested. Considering that one only get one career, all talents but three will be considered non-career. I think its a fair trade off. Doing it this way, we can keep the new cost system. If one were to keep the new system of acquiring specialisations, I would argue for a price system like Donovan suggests. To me either or would be fine. (granted I have not run the numbers).

The new cost of non-career skills is… well, not fun. This creates an incentive - as I think has been mentioned already - to take on specialisations rather than investing in non-career skills - even if there is only one or two you actually need. To me specialisation requires and suggest training - I would not let players just pick up a new specialisation because they need a skill or talent, it would have to be done through roleplaying and in-game events… if a character on the other hand wanted to learn how to point and click a trigger (not saying its an easy skill to shoot), that would require training and experience from actually trying in combat. I preferred the old pricing system - I might keep it regardless of this update.

The new droid changes confused me last night, but I see them now and I like them. Although I also liked the previous of "any 2 skills" - which my current droid player used in a good way. I'll let him keep the ranks I think - older model

The talent changes seems ok, nothing to add.

Combat clarifications - Good! Thank you!

I'm really glad that the specialisations are getting an overhaul, and especially that talents are now all permanent. Even though players may never have got to the point where they needed to take a 4th spec, the perceived risk of spending something and losing it later is a big turnoff.

Having said that, I still think more work is needed on the talent trees, which IMO are one of the weakest parts of an otherwise excellent system. My main grumbles about the system are

* It's overly complicated for what is otherwise a very simple system. The basic die mechanic (once you get used to reading the funny symbols) is fast, and having a stack of special rules introduced by talents slows that down. Sometimes, players are forgetting that they have a relevant talent - although I expect that to improve over time, they'll also have more talents to remember.

* The talent tree connections are somewhat random between the specialisations. While it makes sense for some careers (for example, Politico), some of the decisions are baffling (Slicer being the worst offender.)

* Some of the talents simply are not very good. For example, Improved Bodyguard is a very weak upgrade to Bodyguard - the extra maneuver is a significant extra cost especially as it is either going to replace an action (which could be used to proactively neutralise a threat) or cost 2 Strain.

* Other talents are only situationally useful. For example, the Scholar's bonus to dealing with institutes of learning. Honestly, if I were running a game with a Scholar in it and they were negotiating with an institute, I'd give them a boost die for free.

* Other talents can be accommodated using the rules as they stand - Utility Belt allows you to spend destiny to "find" a useful item not on your sheet. However, that's a already an acceptable use for destiny, so why would I expect a character to spend points on this talent?

In summary, I would like to see talent trees pruned down to the most "iconic" and useful abilities for each specialisaton. I'm going to go away and think how this could be done, and maybe post some examples.

Re: skills, I've never been a fan of restricting skills access based on class. Why is is it significantly easier for my assassin to learn how to fly a ship than how to shoot someone with a blaster pistol? Why do gadgeteers get access to talents that improve their ability to coerce people but don't have access to the skill itself? If you really have to do this, why not charge a one-off cost (say an extra 5-10 XP) to make a skill a career skill - you could do this as a separate cost to taking a new specialisation (in other words, taking a new specialisation doesn't give you new class skills, you have to buy the extra "career" skill slots 5-10XP at a time.)

Doc, the Weasel said:

But there are a couple of problems.

1. It costs a manuever to engage. If the manuever is never spent I can't say they are engaged unless I have to give them a free engage manuever. If I throw a thermal detonator in a 10x10 room full of people that are not specifically engaged with the one target, obviously blast should be able to be activated on all/most of them. In the next round are they all considered engaged for melee with the original target and they can spend their manuever on something else before attacking him or if they want to run away from him they have to disengage first?

2. The clarification on engage makes it sound more like a state than a range. There is very little difference between engaged and short. They even call it a subset.

Perhaps blast should affect all at short range?

Also I can't remember if blast is active or passive but it should probably be passive for larger explosives. If I hit someone with a thermal detonator and they are surrounded by people they should all be affected whether the attacker wants it or not.

I'm not trying to get too down on this and I'm comfortable with breaking the rules to make sense of a situation but I think there are more realistic and simple solutions to both engaged and blast that don't require exceptions. As a GM I don't want to force a PC to be engaged if they didn't plan to be just becasue it makes sense that a grenade should hit them. It could also be that I have something wrong here and need to be set straight.

usgrandprix said:

I've just assumed that the maneuver to enter cover is essentially a maneuver to engage with that cover. And since the rules state that characters engaged with the same object/character are also engaged with each other, then those 3 Storm Troopers are engaged with each other by entering into cover in the same place.

So would you never allow a character to be affected by blast unless they were specifically engaged with a target?

usgrandprix said:

I may be thinking of WFRP 3e where it doesn't cost a maneuver to engage a non-hostile ally (or object in this case). I agree with Inksplat, though. The alternative is to be next to cover but not engaged , which is weird.

They should clarify that in a future revision.

Maybe some more granularity with area weapons since I'll bet a thermal detonator has a greater radius than a grenade. Two qualities?

Blast (passive), for larger weapons, must occur/player has no choice, on hit all within short range of target take blast rating in damage, on miss spend 2 (1?) adv to make target and all in short range take blast rating in damage

Explosive (active?), for smaller weapons, when activated all engaged with target take explosive rating in damage, on miss spend 3 adv to make target and all engaged take explosive rating in damage

FWIW I'd make the numbers a bit smaller than they are for these qualities.

I agree with the stormtrooper/speederbike/all engaged example. Good point. But I think there are situations where you'll not be engaged with the target but should be hit by blast. Some players will argue that point if you rule that against them (and with validity).

usgrandprix said:

1. It costs an maneuver ("interact with environment") to take cover behind the speeder bike. This could be considered to be a engagement maneuver as well. Besides, to really take cover behind something, you are typically close enough to interact with it, the definition of "engaged". Multiple characters or objects that are engaged with some common character or object, are all considered to be in one big engagement. If a set of characters are all covering behind something the size of a speeder, its reasonable enough to say they are close enough to interact with each other, and are eligible for blast. This may be different if they were hiding behind an X-wing. But these are places where GM fiat is appropriate.

2. Personally think the definition is fine as is.

The ranges are intended to be abstract to speed things up, instead of slowing the game down. The GM should have the power to say "yeah, you're close enough" without counting grid squares. It just requires more judgement than the older systems did.

Blast is active because it has an activation cost. Re: TD's, there's a decent discussion on the gear thread about this. Some consideration is given to having everyone engaged hit by a TD automatically, and blast activating to hit everyone at close range.

-WJL

Well, one thing to realize is we're talking a narrative system here.

When thinking in Narrative terms, its -really- unlikely that the dudes in Short Range would be hit in a story or movie. The guys right next to it? Absolutely a chance to get blasted. But the people in Short Range are going to simply get that "Leap out of the way with an awesome explosion at their back" sequence that is oh-so-common.

So, honestly, I'm not sure I have a problem with it being Engaged for actual damage to be dealt. Especially since Minions all act as a group anyway, so the group of rookie storm troopers who get blasted can all get taken out by the initial attack anyway, and that pretty handily covers the aspect that's important--a hero throwing a grenade and nuking an entire group of baddies.

Henchmen & Nemesis have varying degrees of plot armor in those situations, so I think Engaged fits that.

Doc, the Weasel said:

I think what you're thinking of is that in the RAW you don't need to spend a maneuver to disengage from an engagement of only friendly targets (In EotE Beta, pg 131 "Move" maneuver, pg WFRP3E Player's Handbook pg 66). I think you do need to spend a maneuver to engage with anything (hostile, friendly, neutral, inanimate) that you aren't at least implicitly already engaged with (e.g. a group of minions, or players walking together)

-WJL

Devil's advocate:

2 PCs

Each playing separate card games at separate tables.

They are sitting in unconnected chairs back to back five feet apart.

One is engaged with one seat/table/card opponent/whatever

The other is engaged with another seat/table/card opponent/whatever

Neither remotely engaged with the other yet 2.5 feet from where I could throw a grenade between them. But I have to target one PC.

RAW I can't say blast affects the second, untargeted PC. I would rule it and then a player would say "I'm not engaged with that target." Interestingly it does affect the guy with more cover on the other side of the table because he's engaged with the PC.

Then later when the PC uses a grenade and wants blast to affect an unengaged/just as close adversary (5 feet) but in my judgement becasue of a desk I have to say "no blast doesn't work." Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not, but I might be coming from a different perspective becasue I know about more than the PC does by nature of the GM position knowing details of the situation. "But, but…"

Why even use an area weapon? PCs will not fear them. They are expensive and one shot and I can't remember but might require a manuever. It only ever affects one PC unless they say they are engaged with another PC or common item for some reason and that's not coming up. And I can't even target an area. I can only target a person. And you have to roll 3 adv to activate blast on a miss, which minions are not doing. Unless you're going to say unengaged people are affected…sometimes.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned (didn't have time to go through the thread), but it will be important to establish which specializations are purchased in what order. If you are buying three specializations it will be cheaper to buy your non-career specialization first and your career specialization second. The way it is in update 4 it would even be cheaper for the player to buy the non-career at character creation then buy the career specialization after the game starts.

Career Spec (10) + Non Career Spec (30) = 40

Non Career Spec (20) + Career Spec (15) = 35

LethalDose said:

So what you said is certainly correct - from a certain (theoretical) point of view.

To provide another (based on play) POV: 20XP above means the character's second specialisation (assuming out of career). In my experience with the system, players tend to pick up their second specialisation during character creation anyway (at least 4, maybe all of my 5 players did), to round out their character. However, even if that second specialisation is taken purely for optimisation purposes, it's still often cheaper or at least a wash under the old system (remember that during character creation you're limited to 2 ranks in skills and as your math shows the equilibrium point is after 2 skill ranks). As I'm sure we all know, that extra XP during character creation might be a better option than spending it on something you don't really need now for longer term gains (which I'm not arguing are evident in your math).

The second scenario - i.e.: the third and subsequent specialisations - are usually more expensive than the 20 XP you quoted, and would be a pretty marginal investment for a single skill that is likely to be a long way outside your character's area of expertise - i.e.: a skill that you aren't likely to raise above more than 2-3 ranks anyway, at least not for a long time (until after you've raised all your character's "core" skills - represented by your career and first couple of specialisations - up to that level).

LethalDose said:

This hasn't been an issue in my game. The characters who want to be especially competent in combat will have either a career or one of their first couple of specialisations dedicated to something that provides combat skills anyway. Those that don't aren't really overshadowed by just defaulting to their characteristic in this system (as your previous math on the dice showed), and for those shots that really count they can always spend destiny to upgrade to a proficiency die. It's one of the things I really love about the game.

That being said, I'm still against the change, but for a different reason - namely that this change makes the order in which characters pick up specialisations significant. I.e.: picking up a career specialisation before a non-career specialisation is a bad move, when intuitively you would think it should be (if anything) the other way around. The math seems to work out if the cost were the same as the old out of career skill cost (i.e.: 5 + 5 times the number of specialisations the character has), at which point it makes sense to just change the skills back too for consistency.

Unless it was changed for a good reason - something I'm hoping the devs will speak up about.

GoblynByte said:

It's been mentioned in a thread in Game Mechanics . I believe the consensus is to change it to Number of Specs x 5 across the board, with a +10 surcharge if out of career.

Doc, the Weasel said:

Personally I prefer a +5 rather than +10 surcharge, as it smooths the curve better, and if they revert the change to out of career skill costs it will keep the costs for out of career skills and specialisations in line, which was mentioned in the update as a goal.

Okay, good.

gribble said:

Well, with only 3 specializations available you're probably only gonna have that +10 once so the "curve" isn't going to be that steep.

usgrandprix said:

But here's the thing. In the book, Engaged also a spacial measurement. Its within the distance to touch someone.

"To reflect two or more targets close enough to interact directly with each other, there is a special range status called Engaged"

So, if they're really 2 and a half feet from each other, then they are within the Engaged Range band, even if they didn't actively move into it--because they both chose to Engage with the particular tables they are gambling at, that are established as that close together.

Now, in a situation where the player's haven't actively put themselves into that sort of position (within arms reach of each other), then no, the 2nd PC gets the "leap out of the way cinematically, completely unscathed". But in a situation where they put themselves that close to one another? Then they are absolutely Engaged.

Regarding the changes to droids and their equipment, if a droid has these 'certain pieces of equipment' built in, do they still increase their ENC as normal? For armor plating that is thicker/heavier than the standard droid shell, I could see it following the normal ENC rules. But if you have a verbobrain upgrade in place of a datapad, should the upgrade create the same +1 to ENC? What other components should be available to be built in for a droid? And what will the limit be for how many components can be built in?

GoblynByte said:

There isn't a limit of 3 specs anymore.

I don't want to "vigilante moderate" but:

• There's a thread in game mechanics to discuss the spec cost change
• The way blast and engagements work belong in either the combat or gear discussions, especially since nothing being discussed about these mechanics in this thread has been changed in the update.

That being said.

@Bren_Waynero: I think that's a good question, and potentially a good idea. Maybe a way to keep droids as "Specialists" and keep their XP totals low, but still make them appealing to play would be to provide them a -1 encumberance bonus on gear they have "built in" and give them a pool of starting credits to spend on installing this gear. This keeps them unique and I think could really "hit" the droid feel.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Well, these are topics relating to the Week 4 update, and this is a thread for discussing our thoughts on the Week 4 updated, so they'd fit about as well here as anywhere else.

Not to mention that the FFG folks might be more likely to see reactions here than anywhere else.