• When will races, talents etc. from Special Modifications be added approximately?

Hmm. I thought they were already there?

Nope, still cannot find the new specialisations in my version. Got 1.6.3.0 apparently, is this up-to-date?. Thought it does automatic updates, am I wrong?

• When will races, talents etc. from Special Modifications be added approximately?

Hmm. I thought they were already there?

Nope, still cannot find the new specialisations in my version. Got 1.6.3.0 apparently, is this up-to-date?. Thought it does automatic updates, am I wrong?

That is the most recent update, released April 1. Oggy hasn't released the update with Special Modifications yet.

1.6.3 does not have Special Modifications in it. I have purchased it, but right now, I'm adding Reporting to the GM Tools, which is rather complex. So, when I get reporting finished, I'll be adding SM and doing a 1.7 release. Not sure when that will be.

Heya, first of all: Really enjoy your tool! I have a few questions, though:

• When will races, talents etc. from Special Modifications be added approximately?
• What information did you use for those races not yet found in any of the sourcebooks? E.g. Besalisk and Dug have different statistics in Special Modfications compared to your tool. Did you create these yourself or are these from sources I just don´t own (like AoR or FaD)?
• Also, when I modify descriptions etc. in your tool, will these be overwritten by your future updates?

Thanks again and keep up the great work

PS: I apologize if these questions were answered before. I scanned the last pages, but 300+ pages are a bit much

Again, SM will be in the upcoming 1.7 release. Not sure when this will be, but I'll keep everyone posted.

Descriptions are part of your custom data which is not touched between releases, so it's safe. When a species found in USM becomes an official FFG species, it is replaced by the new species data, but it keeps the same key. That means that if you chose a USM species that becomes an FFG species, your character will be automatically upgraded the next time it's loaded. If the new species has different options, you may need to choose them again. If you changed the description of the old USM species, it'll still be there when upgraded to an FFG species. The only time it won't is if you made a custom edit to the species, in which case it'll continue to use your custom version. To have it revert to the new FFG species, you just need to do a "Remove" and revert it back to a "description-only" customization to retain your description, but use the FFG version that comes with the release.

A new feature in the upcoming release is that all description fields in all windows will now display the source and page number at the bottom. So, if you changed all of your descriptions so that it no longer says "Please see page xx of...", you can still find the source and page by scrolling to the bottom. And yes, I upgraded Source to include the page, so in the new reporting feature, you can create index reports of anything you like to have as a reference.

I have 1.6.3 installed but I do not see signature abilities in the menu. Is there something I need to do to access?

NM. I selected another and it popped up. Now I only see a single signature ability vs the second for explorers.

NM. I selected another and it popped up. Now I only see a single signature ability vs the second for explorers.

NM. NM. Yes, Oggdude's SW is correct. My bad. Carry on.

Hey guys, I have been trying like hell to get this to run in crossover since I use mac. Any suggestions for getting it to run?

Hey guys, I have been trying like hell to get this to run in crossover since I use mac. Any suggestions for getting it to run?

I don’t try to run it in any kind of emulation mode on my Mac. I have a VM on Amazon AWS where I run Windows only long enough to update character stuff and print out a new copy, and then shut it back down again.

If you are bound and determined to run a local emulation mode on your Mac, try using either VirtualBox or VMware Fusion.

I love this character generator, and we're using it, and the GM tools, regularly in our ongoing campaign(s).

Recently I've noticed one small issue. The item qualities Defensive and Deflection is described as "increasing the wearer's Defense" as opposed to gaining a new Defense.

I know that different sources of Defense doesn't stack, but when it says it increases Defense, I take it that it is added to the characters existing Ranged or Melee Defense values? The program doesn't seem to calculate this bit as it only gives the highest Defense, be it from armor, Deflection or Defensive qualities.

Here is from the Edge of the Empire FAQ:

-E.

I love this character generator, and we're using it, and the GM tools, regularly in our ongoing campaign(s).

Recently I've noticed one small issue. The item qualities Defensive and Deflection is described as "increasing the wearer's Defense" as opposed to gaining a new Defense.

I know that different sources of Defense doesn't stack, but when it says it increases Defense, I take it that it is added to the characters existing Ranged or Melee Defense values? The program doesn't seem to calculate this bit as it only gives the highest Defense, be it from armor, Deflection or Defensive qualities.

Here is from the Edge of the Empire FAQ:

Q.

Some armor, talents, and item qualities provide a

static defense value, while others specifically increase

a defense value. How do they interact?

A.

When a character can choose between two static

defense values, (for example, if he is in cover and is

wearing armor that has a defense value), he chooses

the better of the two values. Then any armor, talents,

and item qualities he has that “increase” his defense

value are added to the static value he chose. (Cover

has been clarified in the errata to reflect this.)

-E.

It's calculating the values correctly according to the developer's explanation of how it's supposed to work:

Stacking Defense

Question asked by Braendig :

3 Brawn

Sentinel: Shien Expert

1 Rank Defensive Training

Wearing Armored Robes

Wielding a Riot Shield (Left Hand) and a

Shoto Lightsaber with a fully Modified

Lorridian Gemstone and a

fully Modified Curved Hilt ? And why? How would the various defenses stack?"

Answered by Sam Stewart :

Ranged Defense 2

Melee Defense 3

The modified lightsaber would be the source of the defense, because it has the highest ranged and melee defenses. The shoto lightsaber has no innate defense, but the Llordian Gemstone comes with Defensive 1. Its mods allow you to increase the weapon’s defense. Same goes for the curved hilt, its mods also allow you to increase the weapon’s defense.

All of the other defensive sources are from different items, and do not stack.

Defensive does increase rather than set, but you're still allowed only one source of defense. I know this seems to fly in the face of the FAQ, and there's been other questions about this, but this is currently the "official" way it's supposed to work. I heard awhile back that FFG was reconsidering how defense is supposed to be calculated, but no word yet.

I think what happened was that it was originally supposed to work the way you think it should, but they noticed that it was way easy to take advantage of the system and end up with 5 or 6 defense without too much difficulty. This was, in fact, why they changed cover to be "ranged defense 1" rather than "increase ranged defense by 1". But it still didn't solve the out-of-control defense problem, so they came up with the "one source" concept.

I think the issue with defense would be easily ratified by simply saying that the Defensive and Deflection qualities don't stack with one another. Which fits with the FAQ, because they are each a separate source of defense (melee and ranged respectively). So if you have a weapon with Defensive 2 in one hand and a weapon with Defensive 1 in the other, you'd only benefit from Defensive 2 since it's an identical source. Thus, armors with a defense bonus are still useful to those PCs that do carry weapons with the Defensive or Deflection quality.

If the devs are that worried about game balance, they should probably spend some time looking at autofire, which is almost universally agreed upon by players and GMs to be horrifically broken, and it seems GMs either have a house rule or simply doe their best to prevent autofire weapons from getting into the hands of players.

Maybe something to consider for a future release might be a GM option to allow the best Defensive and Deflection value provided by an equipped weapon to stack with the defense bonus of armor?

If the devs are that worried about game balance, they should probably spend some time looking at autofire, which is almost universally agreed upon by players and GMs to be horrifically broken, and it seems GMs either have a house rule or simply doe their best to prevent autofire weapons from getting into the hands of players.

I'm not sure if they consider it a game balance problem or a ridiculously-sized dice pool problem. But I think there's a distinction between autofire (which seems to be universally agreed to be broken in conjunction with Jury-Rigged, but not necessarily broken in and of itself) and massive defense. Autofire puts out a lot of damage and might risk outshining other players. Half-a-dozen setback dice, on the other hand, means you might as well not even bother rolling if you don't have really high skill, as you're basically asking to knock yourself out with your own weapon from threat-inflicted strain. Discouraging characters from even trying is arguably worse than having their contribution outshone by comparison.

Bug report: VCX-100 added from Keeping the Peace does not have it's categories set properly.

If the devs are that worried about game balance, they should probably spend some time looking at autofire, which is almost universally agreed upon by players and GMs to be horrifically broken, and it seems GMs either have a house rule or simply doe their best to prevent autofire weapons from getting into the hands of players.

I'm not sure if they consider it a game balance problem or a ridiculously-sized dice pool problem. But I think there's a distinction between autofire (which seems to be universally agreed to be broken in conjunction with Jury-Rigged, but not necessarily broken in and of itself) and massive defense. Autofire puts out a lot of damage and might risk outshining other players. Half-a-dozen setback dice, on the other hand, means you might as well not even bother rolling if you don't have really high skill, as you're basically asking to knock yourself out with your own weapon from threat-inflicted strain. Discouraging characters from even trying is arguably worse than having their contribution outshone by comparison.

So far as the setback dice making it pointless to try, that's pure nonsense. It's ludicrously easy to stack attack modifiers in this game: burn a couple strain and spend two maneuvers aiming, get an accurate weapon (incredibly easy with rifle), have an ally spend advantage, free advantage from "superior" weapons, etc. You could stack defensive to half a dozen dice and still barely counteract the boost dice you'd have if you spend even a little effort trying to get them.

Limiting the dice pool because it gets awkward to roll ten or more dice is a much more pressing issue, in my experience.

With regards to defensive, personally I feel the talent should always apply simply because it's usually a 25-pt talent towards the bottom of a tree. To have it be nullified by any respectable armor or simply stepping behind a waist-high wall makes the talent virtually a complete waste of XP.

Was just playing around with encouters and then got an idea:

Is it possible to assign minion groups as gunners? IE instead of having an individual minion on the gun you apply the group as the weapon, that way that weapon gets an upgraded pool to represent the group co-ordinating as gunners?

Edit: Of course I am talking about large capital size ships, silhouette 5 and above, particularly star destroyers and the like that have entire banks of weapon emplacements.

As for Defensive, the one I tried was to make a character with a Vibrorapier and a Parrying Vibrodagger, for that "swashbuckling" feel. He had Armored Clothing on. The program calculated both defenses as 1.

Autofire is extremely powerful, I agree. But even though we have a "Heavy" in the current group of characters, armed with a light repeating blaster, he hasn't been able to abuse the RAW. But it will come, I'm sure...

A new FAQ/errata would be in order soon, I think.

E.

As for Defensive, the one I tried was to make a character with a Vibrorapier and a Parrying Vibrodagger, for that "swashbuckling" feel. He had Armored Clothing on. The program calculated both defenses as 1.

Autofire is extremely powerful, I agree. But even though we have a "Heavy" in the current group of characters, armed with a light repeating blaster, he hasn't been able to abuse the RAW. But it will come, I'm sure...

A new FAQ/errata would be in order soon, I think.

E.

My group and I all agree that auto-fire is broken; yet my Heavy player (who has avoided jury-rigged so far) has just recently decided that he want to pick up the Gunner spec. for the True Aim. At which point I asked, "Are you planing on using jury-rigged with your gun?" and he was all, "Well it's there, so why not?". At which point I informed him that if he wished to go down that path, then I would need to as well for their enemies (I'm the GM). He just shrugged.

It's already a struggle sometimes to create dramatic scenarios that don't seem "unfair" against him without him just killing every enemy in sight. Yet here the player is, forcing my hand... Some people just like poking bears I guess, haha.

Disagree with the notion that letting defenses stack is a bad thing.

I understand that it may be a bad thing for dice blout. I get that. Or even at beginner to "Knight" level play.

However, the game is already HEAVILY favors offensive dice pools as is.

For example; the blue dice do not equal the black dice. PLUS almost all sources that increase the offense dice pools, stack. While Defense does not.

In our game*, we let all sources of defense stack. Because if we did not, the game would quickly turn into a game of rocket tag.

Meaning everyone would have ridiculously high initiatives dice pools in order to make sure we go first, insuring we get to kill the bad guys before they can return fire on us.

I love the game, really do. But, IMHO, it does not scale well.

*Our earned exp almost at 4 digits

Part of me doesn't want to ask this because it feels off-topic and because I'm probably wrong, but for auto-fire couldn't the GM keep the enemies at long range and upgrade for dddc, deploy in smaller groups (or much larger groups) put friendlies in the line of fire for setback, and otherwise make the decision to spray difficult from a role-playing standpoint?

@Oggdude

Been a bit lax about thank-you's lately. Much appreciation goes out to Paul Stangl, Benjamin Alger, John Weist, Christopher Oneal, Cedric Karcher, Jared Rascher, James Smith, Charles DeHoag, "Horsebows", and Robert Ross for their kind donations. Mr. DeHoag was especially generous, humblingly so, in fact, so a special thank-you goes out to him.

I really do appreciate the support you guys give. The FFG community is awesome!

Has anyone tried to get this to work on a Raspberry Pi 2?

Has anyone tried to get this to work on a Raspberry Pi 2?

Can you run Microsoft Windows on a Pi?

If so, then you might be able to get this to run on Windows on a Pi.

Hey OggDude,

Still enjoying your amazing work!

Had one of my players move an attachment from one weapon to a new one he bought; not an issue I just added the same attachment to the other weapon.

The thing is though, he failed one of the Mods.

This made me think; could you transfer one attachment (with successful and failed Mods) to another weapon that the player owns?