Istyer, for that, I let people do "Group Checks" (for things like Perception, Survival, etc.) If everyone is actively trying to do something (watching for traps or searching an appartment for clues, or building a shelter, finding food, etc.) then I'll take the highest Skill and the highest linked stat across the group (like skilled aid in RAW) and then add one Boost die for each other person helping (like unskilled aid in RAW). It is much easier than having each individual person roll it, and it allows you to make more daunting tasks and challenges for the party while still allowing them to succeed by working together.

For Stealth, I might say that the sneakiest guy and the most agile guy lead the pack, pointing out rocks and other mayhem that might ruin their cover. I'll also probably add setback dice when needed, like if the other two members are wearing heavy armor or are huge, lumbering and clumsy gammoreans. If multiple people can do it, I like having everyone work together as a team. It makes for a good time. You can do this for just about anything that you or your players can spin, like lifting rocks or collectively cheating at cards to swindle one dude for money (ala 21.)

Mine are in my signature.

Only house rule I've needed that affects play is porting the ship operation expenses from WEG's GG6 Tramp Freighters .

I've decided I'll be using Cr250 bay rental + Cr250 per hull point for player rolled repairs on ships, but not charging for talent's bonus points repaired.

Gear and Equipment:

Knockdown quality: Frag Grenades, Thermal Detonators, and Missile tubes gain the Knockdown quality. Also, vehicle and starship scale weapons used against character scale targets also apply the knockdown quality.

I like the intent here, however, if these weapons do not have the knockdown quality (which i'm assuming they don't since you're adding it), then imo that is what advantage is for.

The blast may not knock someone over, but roll a few advantage or triumph, and it will.

Some of mine:

Class skills are only used to determine starting skills. For advancement all skills are class skills

Talent Trees: Dont cost points. If you want to buy into a tree, you need two of the specialization skills at level 2

wow, why? Was there a reason behind this?

I can't imagine them having automatic Knockdown, just adding the quality. So you would still need 2 Advantage to trigger them.

I can't imagine them having automatic Knockdown, just adding the quality. So you would still need 2 Advantage to trigger them.

oh, duh.

Yeah, that's a good idea then.

Pretty sure i'll be rolling Brawl and Melee into a single skill. I almost did the same with Ranged (Light) and (Heavy), but blasters are what most people will be using. Distinguishing the differences seems fine, especially since it helps define the different niches of, say a smuggler with a pistol and a hired gun with an auto-blaster.

Melee combat seems like more of its own schtick. When the blaster bolts start flying, you'll probably only have one guy who charges in to get up-close and personal, so I don't see a lot of need to differentiate there. And really, if you take any master of unarmed combat, and hand him a stick, he becomes more dangerous, not less. I'm not going to penalize him for taking Brawl instead of Melee.

[..] I let people do "Group Checks" (for things like Perception, Survival, etc.) If everyone is actively trying to do something (watching for traps or searching an appartment for clues, or building a shelter, finding food, etc.) then I'll take the highest Skill and the highest linked stat across the group (like skilled aid in RAW) and then add one Boost die for each other person helping (like unskilled aid in RAW). It is much easier than having each individual person roll it, and it allows you to make more daunting tasks and challenges for the party while still allowing them to succeed by working together.

I like this rule quite a bit. It's not the simplest, but it's the most elegant I've seen.

The only one we've used is that Obligation checks (to see what is activated) are made at the end of the session and take effect in the following session. The intent is to give the GM time to include the result of the check into the game in a more satisfying manner.

Pretty sure i'll be rolling Brawl and Melee into a single skill. I almost did the same with Ranged (Light) and (Heavy), but blasters are what most people will be using. Distinguishing the differences seems fine, especially since it helps define the different niches of, say a smuggler with a pistol and a hired gun with an auto-blaster.

Melee combat seems like more of its own schtick. When the blaster bolts start flying, you'll probably only have one guy who charges in to get up-close and personal, so I don't see a lot of need to differentiate there. And really, if you take any master of unarmed combat, and hand him a stick, he becomes more dangerous, not less. I'm not going to penalize him for taking Brawl instead of Melee.

How do you convert existing characters who have both?

Pretty sure i'll be rolling Brawl and Melee into a single skill. I almost did the same with Ranged (Light) and (Heavy), but blasters are what most people will be using. Distinguishing the differences seems fine, especially since it helps define the different niches of, say a smuggler with a pistol and a hired gun with an auto-blaster.

Melee combat seems like more of its own schtick. When the blaster bolts start flying, you'll probably only have one guy who charges in to get up-close and personal, so I don't see a lot of need to differentiate there. And really, if you take any master of unarmed combat, and hand him a stick, he becomes more dangerous, not less. I'm not going to penalize him for taking Brawl instead of Melee.

But being good with your fists is entirely different to being able to swing around a weapon. You can be good at one without being better at the other.

And no, if you're a master of unarmed combat, with no experience with using a staff, you won't be more dangerous - you'd just be relying on your (presumably good) natural skill (Brawn).

Pretty sure i'll be rolling Brawl and Melee into a single skill. I almost did the same with Ranged (Light) and (Heavy), but blasters are what most people will be using. Distinguishing the differences seems fine, especially since it helps define the different niches of, say a smuggler with a pistol and a hired gun with an auto-blaster.

Melee combat seems like more of its own schtick. When the blaster bolts start flying, you'll probably only have one guy who charges in to get up-close and personal, so I don't see a lot of need to differentiate there. And really, if you take any master of unarmed combat, and hand him a stick, he becomes more dangerous, not less. I'm not going to penalize him for taking Brawl instead of Melee.

But being good with your fists is entirely different to being able to swing around a weapon. You can be good at one without being better at the other.

And no, if you're a master of unarmed combat, with no experience with using a staff, you won't be more dangerous - you'd just be relying on your (presumably good) natural skill (Brawn).

I think there's some cross-over in the training, such as knowing how to spot an opening, when to strike, where to hit, etc. But I do agree with Millandson; it's not the same thing. I would still keep them as separate skills. The one guy who charges in will probably favor one method over the other anyway. I would, in this case, add one or two Boost when using the lower ranked skill, to represent the similar training. (borrowing from the skill synergy rules in d20)

As personally having martial arts training for 10 years, using your fists or a weapon not the same thing. yes there are similar things. But unlike unarmed combat i had to learn a whole new skill set: how to hold the weapon, How to strike with it, how to block, or trap.

Yes i could do both, but i needed training to be really effective with both.

Don't know if "incapacitate/Critical Injury roll on equaling wound threshold and not just on exceeding it" has already come up in this thread, but according to Donovan Morningfire even Sam Stewart and Sterling Hershey were doing it at GenCon .

I agree that encumbrance as written seems a bit... conservative. I hadn't figured out how to deal with it.

In thinking a bit about Obligation, I'm toying with doubles forcing a second roll rather than doubling the numeric penalty. I like the idea that multiple Obligations might be in play at once.

Oh multiple obligations at once is a great idea. I might have to steal this one for myself. Suspicious yoink .

Oh man I really like that. Would you then just give both activated Obligation people -2 to their strain and everyone else -1?

Oh man oh man I really like that. Suspicious yoink indeed.

*Yoink*

The only real house rule I am planning to use now that my game is about to kick off is to ignore the encumbrance rules. My players are pretty mature, and I have threatened to arbitrarily assign them setback dice if they start hoarding stuff on their characters.

Don't know if "incapacitate/Critical Injury roll on equaling wound threshold and not just on exceeding it" has already come up in this thread, but according to Donovan Morningfire even Sam Stewart and Sterling Hershey were doing it at GenCon .

Dictionary definition of 'threshold'; n. The point that must be exceeded to begin producing a given effect or result or to elicit a response

By definition I take it to mean that exceeding the WT triggers a Critical Injury, while meeting it does not.

For strain and wounds, the effect comes in at threshold +1

So at max wounds (12/12, for example), the player is still up and kicking. At 13 and above, he is incapacitated and suffers a crit.

For strain and wounds, the effect comes in at threshold +1

So at max wounds (12/12, for example), the player is still up and kicking. At 13 and above, he is incapacitated and suffers a crit.

This is at least how warhammer 3 works, so I guess that EotE is the same.

My players in d20 frequently used Intimidation to force surrender, and I've made changes to calculating difficulty in that case. Edge of the Empire seems to have a better system with coercion, especially when dealing with multiple targets. For purposes of surrender, I would compare a minion group's Discipline (if a listed skill) against a possible difficulty based on number (rather than counting them as a single unit), and use the higher of the two.

I also take the situation into account. Threatening to fire on someone who is already expecting a fight (and is likewise armed) isn't going to sway them much, unless you initially show up with a clearly superior force. Otherwise, you'll need to demonstrate superiority, typically by engaging in a few rounds of combat and winning.

Other factors I alternately use is the presence of a commander within enemy ranks. In EotE, this might be a squad of stormtrooper minions with a Sergeant. In this case, when a player attempts Coercion to get the squad to surrender, it would be either be an opposed check vs. the Sergeant's Leadership, or perhaps instead, the Sergeant's presence upgrades the squad's Discipline. This will also provide the players with a good strategic opportunity. The Sergeant [Rival] is not part of the Minion group, and can be targeted separately. Take out the leader, and it's easier to get the squad to back down.

One last variation I would use is a non-present leader or Boss. This is one of the methods for letting a powerful NPC [Nemesis] oppose the PCs without facing them directly. Suppose you're fighting a group of thugs who work for the Hutt cartel, and you try to get them to surrender. Their Willpower Discipline pool is only a couple of dice, but they know that failing their Hutt boss will carry... unpleasant consequences. The GM can throw in a couple of setback dice. An upgraded die might reflect a panic response such as setting off a detonator. "Better dead here, than fed to the Rancor."

Don't know if "incapacitate/Critical Injury roll on equaling wound threshold and not just on exceeding it" has already come up in this thread, but according to Donovan Morningfire even Sam Stewart and Sterling Hershey were doing it at GenCon .

Dictionary definition of 'threshold'; n. The point that must be exceeded to begin producing a given effect or result or to elicit a response

By definition I take it to mean that exceeding the WT triggers a Critical Injury, while meeting it does not.

Just to be clear here, any post in which someone brings up a dictionary definition is automatically less credible in my eyes, not more ; Donovan's post was about how notable it was to see not only that were the sessions that Donovan mentioned (and played in) all using that house-rule -- or "made up on the fly rather than interrupt to actually check the CRB" rule -- but that " FFG-sponsored GMs, including two that worked on the rulebook itself, are all doing the same thing " instead of going with RAW... kind of reminds me of the CloakShape.

.

Truthbetold, GM Stark, I believe that situational boost and setback dice are the way to go; I would keep in mind though that several of the "group leader" Rival NPCs such as Imperial Naval Officers and Stormtrooper Sergeants have Tactical Direction or other corresponding abilities which add a boost die to their corresponding Minion groups' next check, perhaps that can find its way into such the house rule?

Pretty sure i'll be rolling Brawl and Melee into a single skill. I almost did the same with Ranged (Light) and (Heavy), but blasters are what most people will be using. Distinguishing the differences seems fine, especially since it helps define the different niches of, say a smuggler with a pistol and a hired gun with an auto-blaster.

Melee combat seems like more of its own schtick. When the blaster bolts start flying, you'll probably only have one guy who charges in to get up-close and personal, so I don't see a lot of need to differentiate there. And really, if you take any master of unarmed combat, and hand him a stick, he becomes more dangerous, not less. I'm not going to penalize him for taking Brawl instead of Melee.

But being good with your fists is entirely different to being able to swing around a weapon. You can be good at one without being better at the other.

And no, if you're a master of unarmed combat, with no experience with using a staff, you won't be more dangerous - you'd just be relying on your (presumably good) natural skill (Brawn).

I suspect there's more overlap in the skillsets for Melee and Brawl than in:

• Throwing an apple at someone
• Tossing a grenade for maximum impact
• Using a slingshot
• Fireing an 18th-century "dueling" revolver
• Firing a modern pistol
• Throwing a knife at a moving target

...yet those are all Ranged (Light).

Just saying.

*Yoink*

The only real house rule I am planning to use now that my game is about to kick off is to ignore the encumbrance rules. My players are pretty mature, and I have threatened to arbitrarily assign them setback dice if they start hoarding stuff on their characters.

I'd advise against this because removing the Encumbrance rules as written removes the balancing factor they provide and, for example, allow characters with a low Brawn score to wear say Heavy Armor without having to sacrifice carrying some other needed equipment. This is unfair to Players that spent the resources on their Brawn Attribute so they can carry all the stuff (as well a be a melee/brawl god).

The problem I find when people house rule is they often don't think it all the way through to all the potential ways the rules ripple out through the system.

Another one is the Armor and Cover of equal value not stacking in the RAW. T he rules seem to be designed so you can play fine without wearing Heavy Armor all the time and have a Han Solo like character (who never wears armor) without feeling like you're missing out on needed protection because you can gain an almost equal value by sacrificing maneuverability (staying behind cover). This is one of the reasons that I like the non-stacking of cover and armor of equal value, it doesn't overly penalize PCs who don't wear heavy armor.

Good point about the existing group leader benefit. As I said, I do think EotE has a good system, but I am going to consider Minion groups as "multiple subjects" rather than a single unit. Otherwise, a Minion group consisting of Aqualish Thugs (which don't have Discipline on their skill list) would resist a Coercion test to make them surrender, with only a Willpower of 1. I guess this isn't so much a "house rule" as it is my read on the RAW.

Good point about the existing group leader benefit. As I said, I do think EotE has a good system, but I am going to consider Minion groups as "multiple subjects" rather than a single unit. Otherwise, a Minion group consisting of Aqualish Thugs (which don't have Discipline on their skill list) would resist a Coercion test to make them surrender, with only a Willpower of 1. I guess this isn't so much a "house rule" as it is my read on the RAW.

Define "multiple subjects", unless you mean them acting individually? Because my understanding of the Minion rules is if they don't have Discipline on their skill list or a corresponding opposing skill vs. Coercion, then they're not resisting with a trained skill, only the Willpower 1. (And as you may see, usually the only minion group skills involved are combat skills.) Whereas them being the beneficiaries of Tactical Direction doesn't seem to require them to have a resisting skill on their group skill list.

Good point about the existing group leader benefit. As I said, I do think EotE has a good system, but I am going to consider Minion groups as "multiple subjects" rather than a single unit. Otherwise, a Minion group consisting of Aqualish Thugs (which don't have Discipline on their skill list) would resist a Coercion test to make them surrender, with only a Willpower of 1. I guess this isn't so much a "house rule" as it is my read on the RAW.

Trying to coerce a group into doing something IS harder than an individual. that's kind of the point of a minion group.

If they are untrained in Discipline with a Willpower of 1, that means a 3-minion group's Discipline roll would be YG. Not THAT great, still.

Also, Long Arm of the Hutt puts a spin on that. The Less guys that are left, the easier it is to Coerce/Charm them. If 12 left, the difficulty is PPPP, if 7 left, it's PPP, if 4, it's PP. Something like that.