Added some homebrewed weapons to the list...
Anyone think they're over-powered? Unnecessary?

I've vote Unnecessary.

Shouldnt a shotgun have 'blast' quality like the spread barrel attachment.

Also, would talents ever increase damage done by Blasts, say for instance POINT BLANK?

I agree that having dozens (or more) named/different models of weapons is completely unnecessary.

Take the generic havy blaster pistol and call it whatever you want.

I think the new guns are fun! I have also been missing some variety among the slug throwers available in the CR and you do a very fine job of filling out the blanks. Well done! I would like to see an extra hard point on some of them and also some slug thrower-specific attachments - precision barrels, armor piercing ammo, stuff like that.

Lots of players I've met would rather have an DL44 Blaster Pistol then a generic Heavy Blaster Pistol. So I understand wanting to differentiate. Yes you can just apply the name and say, yep you have it, but that's not fun. I think the best way to do this though is with the rules we already have. If you want to differentiate between different weapons of the same type, simply use attachments and modifications. The DL44 is still a Heavy Blaster Pistol, it just might have anextra attachment off the shelf that makes it slightly different and more expensive then a standard Heavy Blaster Pistol with no extras.

Example: You have a "Hunting Rifle" under Slugthrowers. Why not house rule some more attachments such as a slugthrower "Extended Barrel". Add that to the Slugthrower Rifle and you have your longer ranged Hunting Slugthrower Rifle.

Another example. You have an E-11 above. Here is what I did for my own campaign using newly created attachments added to a canon Blaster Carbine (yes I think the E-11 should be a carbine, but that's a different debate).

That being said, there ARE some weapons missing that may be coming out in future resource books that can't be made with simple attachments. There is no Bow & Arrows, for example, even though Ewoks use those. I wouldn't mind having a list of missing weapons until something official comes out. Note on Bows, Bolas, Spear, etc - I've considered Athletics as the appropriate skill instead of Ranged (light). I don't want my Ewok Master Bow Hunter to also be an expert the first time he picks up a Blaster Pistol.

I think the new guns are fun! I have also been missing some variety among the slug throwers available in the CR and you do a very fine job of filling out the blanks. Well done! I would like to see an extra hard point on some of them and also some slug thrower-specific attachments - precision barrels, armor piercing ammo, stuff like that.

This is exactly what I've done for my slugthrowers.

This is exactly what I've done for my slugthrowers.

Neat! Please share!

This is exactly what I've done for my slugthrowers.

Neat! Please share!

Cut a section on slugthrowers from a larger document. It's a work in progress.

Great job! I'll definitely be introducing those to my group.

Giving limited ammo to all those slugthrows misses the point of how EotE handles small arms ammo. The game assumes that players carry enough ammo for most fights and uses things like despair to represent an oopsie, so players don't have to track ammo counts for "normal" guns, or worry about running out of ammo in a simple scuffle with some minions.

I might give the holdout slugthrower a rule like the heavy blaster pistol, and would remove limited ammo from the rest.

While I do agree with diggles on the necessity of specific weapons, I disagree with shotguns having blast. A shotgun loaded with shot large enough to seriously injure a human sized target has a surprisingly small spread, even at range. Not enough to justify a blast rating.

Not a fan of throwing Limited Ammo on every weapon that involves a physical bullet. That completely defeats the cinematic styling of using a solid-projectile rifle if you have to track individual bullets. The core book has opted not to do that for its slugthrowers; what about tracking ammo do you like to have included the mechanic?

And somehow pistols have limited ammo but a bow and arrows don't? Um...

The issue I have is that by making 'named' weapons such as the dl-44 better than a generic catch all, you create a desire for players to have the better gun. Which goes to killing and looting every enemy.

Personally that doesn't seem to suit star wars but your parsecs may vary.

The issue I have is that by making 'named' weapons such as the dl-44 better than a generic catch all, you create a desire for players to have the better gun. Which goes to killing and looting every enemy.

Personally that doesn't seem to suit star wars but your parsecs may vary.

What you seem to be saying is that as long as the named weapons aren't better, just different, you're fine. That's cool, I guess. That adds flavor. But the whole point of making some named weapons better IS to create a desire for it. Is this an issue? No, it could made an asset. Read the box named 'Keeping the party hungry' in CR (don't remember the page #) and you'll see what I mean.

By using attachments you aren't making a different weapon that is better. It's basically pre-installed attachments with a brand name added for color. You can already make better weapons with the system in place. Is that game breaking? So that SoroSuub Sniper 6 is not a new weapon at all, but a Heavy Blaster Rifle with Telescopic Scope and Marskman Barrel attachments already installed for the added price. A Heavy Blaster Rifle with those 2 attachments already existed in the rules-as-written. We are just tacking on a name to that specific combination. It's cooler with a name to some of us.

I think some guidelines for adjusting weapons could me made... just by looking in the adversary chapter you can find good guidelines I guess, it's what I've done for my own ranged weapon additions.

Originally I made tons of new blaster pistols for this game... then I narrowed that down to three new and "generic" ones, added some attachments and stopped there.

That said, the duelist pistol on the arrogant heir (or what its called) is pretty nice, if I recall correctly its a light or basic blaster pistol with an accuracy 2 quality. How much extra would that cost? I'd say a clean quality add should add somewhere between half weapon cost, up to doubling it if not more.

I'd also say that adding qualities should be somehow limited, perhaps 2, or 3, at a maximum. The cost should also increase drastically.

Like adding 1 quality - that is not available through attachments - could cost 60% of weapon base cost.

Adding a second adds a cost that is 120% of weapon base cost, a third 240%.

So if going for a weapon that costs 1000 credits, the first adds 600 to the price, the second 1200, the third 2400, for a total of 5200 credits for that piece of weaponry. Of course adjust the percentage to fit your game, you could start at 40% or lower too.

Of course removing qualities, basically replacing them, could also affect the price.

Qualities that can be gained through attachments should at least cost half if not more of the attachment price - a superior quality weapon should at least add 2,500 to its price, preferably more in my opinion.

As for the SoroSuub Sniper 6 - I assume that variant of the heavy blaster rifle does not have auto-fire? the sniping blaster rifle in AoR (see scout troopers in adversary chapter) is pretty nice, and has slow-firing

Added some homebrewed weapons to the list...

Anyone think they're over-powered? Unnecessary?

I have no problem with a "named" weapon for sale as long as any bonuses it has are from available Mods and they are pre-installed using the base weapon's available Hard Points, adding the cost of those Mods to the weapon's base price, and the rarity reflects the fact that installing a Mod is a Difficult Mech check (say bump the Rarity by 1 or 2).

For Example: The DL-44 you've listed has used up two HPs (Blaster Actuating Mod cr500 & Filed Front Sight cr24) which leaves 1 HP left available, it's cost to account for those Mods is cr1325, and because of the difficulty to instal those Mods it's Rarity is one higher 7.

If you don't then you are essentially creating new classes of weapons that have several extra Hardpoints, some of them filled with Mods at no extra cost in price or difficulty to obtain, this is pretty much an open door into Munchkinland...

I'm gonna put the "named weapons have different/better stats" as largely unnecessary, as it shifts the focus away from "what innate things can your character do " to the D&D focus of "what cool things does your gear do?" By adding variants of the stock weapons that have different effects, you create an incentive for the players to try and acquire those "better" weapons. If a player really wants to "trick out' their weapon, the attachment/modification system exists to allow them to do so.

Star Wars by and large isn't about special gear. You've got a small number of characters (particularly those of the PC mold) that have iconic items, such as Luke with a lightsaber (though the lightsaber itself isn't special beyond the personal significance of "it was my father's") or Han with the Falcon, or Boba Fett with his mando-style armor.

I'm gonna put the "named weapons have different/better stats" as largely unnecessary, as it shifts the focus away from "what innate things can your character do " to the D&D focus of "what cool things does your gear do?" By adding variants of the stock weapons that have different effects, you create an incentive for the players to try and acquire those "better" weapons. If a player really wants to "trick out' their weapon, the attachment/modification system exists to allow them to do so.

Star Wars by and large isn't about special gear. You've got a small number of characters (particularly those of the PC mold) that have iconic items, such as Luke with a lightsaber (though the lightsaber itself isn't special beyond the personal significance of "it was my father's") or Han with the Falcon, or Boba Fett with his mando-style armor.

I think the current system of attachments and mods in fact encourages further customization. If one of my players invests heavily in Negotiation and Mechanics in order to procure a rare weapon I am certainly going to reward him or her for the effort. Such a weapon is highly feared and coveted by adversaries and will probably even become a story hook. Furthermore, this emotional investment by the player immediately makes the weapon in question a part of his/her character, much in a way that a talent is. Star Wars IS a matter of gears and gadgets, and the system provided by EotE helps to make sure that the PCs hold on to their equipment just like Fett, Solo and Luke does. Munchkinland, as Greg mentioned, is a matter of looting a +3 Broad Sword from a random dungeon - I see why you don't want that and it is also easy to avoid.

I don't think anyone is advocating the introduction of "better" weapons without drawbacks like availability, price, restriction or even making them very narrow in their specialization. You still have Galactic economy and technological advancements to consider - and given that, why wouldn't there be a plethora of gear out there just waiting to be discovered?

I don't think anyone is advocating the introduction of "better" weapons without drawbacks like availability, price, restriction or even making them very narrow in their specialization. You still have Galactic economy and technological advancements to consider - and given that, why wouldn't there be a plethora of gear out there just waiting to be discovered?

What I meant by Munchkinism in this case was the creation of weapons that are essentially already available using the current Modding RAW, but in such a way as to circumvent the limits in place. My example of the OP's DL-44 Heavy Blaster tried to show what I meant. You can have Han Solo's blaster you just have to say you bought a Superior Heavy Blaster, call it a DL-44 and use it's 3 Hard Points to add the appropriate Mods, or you could buy one already fitted out with those Mods. The Munchinism part comes in when you make a DL-44 that has the bonuses associated with the available Mods and Qualities built in but still has the option of buying the Superior quality and have three HPs available for additional Mods. The cost is less important than the number of available upgrade slots. For a Heavy Blaster it's a max of 5 upgrades: 3 HPs, Superior Quality, and Jury Rigging, the OP's DL-44 would have 7.

As for looting I don't see this as an issue as long as you follow the Encumbrance rules and not hand waving away the fact that the dealing in stolen Imperial military equipment is very illegal.

By Munchkinland I also meant having so much gear that a newly looted "better" weapon becomes rather meh due to the pile of other "better" weapons already occupying space in the PCs cargo hold.

So yeah, OP's DL-44 needs to be toned down a bit, either statwise or price/rarity/restrictionwise. HP-wise there is a alternative way around it and let me explain what I mean. If you start taking a high quality weapon apart you'll quickly notice that those parts are built to fit very well together and very hard to replace in a meaningful way. Or you'll find that installing a scope actually interferes with your highly accurate rifle's hit rate. Take OP's Scout Blaster for example. I would consider giving it accuracy 2 instead of 1, that would make the weapon something to hold on to. But, start to tamper with it and one will quickly find those bonuses reducing or vanishing altogether. Maybe customizing a stock blaster would have yielded a better result.

By "better" weapons I mean weapons that are better out of the box, and I would find it highly unlikely if such weapons didn't exist in the Star Wars universe.

If I may draw my line of thought a bit longer we'll find that to make these named weapons meaningful they will have to be provided with stats that you cannot reach with the normal attachments and mods. Accurate being one obvious example. Slow-firing combined with a higher damage or range is another. And this is what i think the customization rules encourages us to do: Find qualities not encompassed by the attachments in the CR and make your own weapons. But yes, those weapons should also cap quicker in terms of cusomization - and that fits very well in terms of both munchkinification, economy and technology.

Sure, you could make a named weapon that actually is a "bundle" of a normal weapon with a preinstalled attachment and/or a mod, but it would have to be somewhat cheaper than buying the parts separate since there are no left over parts and customizing them should yield some kind of setback a normal weapon customization wouldn't do.

Nice work, but from my point of view your excellent work on the slugthrowers is more suitable for a different type of setting, and I mean that in the most respectful and good way as possible.

I considered similar stuff for my catalogue, and I went by some of those same ideas at one point or another. Now far be it for me to tell you what to do or how to portray Star Wars in your own games, but I do think that blasters are sort of signature weapons of the setting.

My own take on the silencer is to require no HP, since basically its a removable attachment I thought it that it would take up a HP.

As for the barrel attachments, belt feed and magnumization I like those, but as always I have some observations:

• Magnumization isn't necessary though, you could rather introduce ammo types that require no HPs, I don't say that just because it's what I did, but also because it's how it has been done in earlier SWRPGs.
• Double barrelled, I like this, probably because I have made it myself. I added the inaccurate quality too though, for my blaster version at least - not to say it couldn't be used on slugthrowers... that's a good idea you have there (noted!)
• Belt feed is cool, but those modifications seem more fitting a different slugthrower weapon really, a proper machine gun-ish. For belt feed I'd give the slugthrower the auto-fire quality, and perhaps an increased chance of running out of ammo akin to heavy blasters. Perhaps also increased Encumbrance, and/or increase Cumbersome +1
• The extended and cut-down barrels are cool, I might just "borrow" those - if you don't mind

So yeah, OP's DL-44 needs to be toned down a bit, either statwise or price/rarity/restrictionwise. HP-wise there is a alternative way around it and let me explain what I mean. If you start taking a high quality weapon apart you'll quickly notice that those parts are built to fit very well together and very hard to replace in a meaningful way. Or you'll find that installing a scope actually interferes with your highly accurate rifle's hit rate. Take OP's Scout Blaster for example. I would consider giving it accuracy 2 instead of 1, that would make the weapon something to hold on to. But, start to tamper with it and one will quickly find those bonuses reducing or vanishing altogether. Maybe customizing a stock blaster would have yielded a better result.

By "better" weapons I mean weapons that are better out of the box, and I would find it highly unlikely if such weapons didn't exist in the Star Wars universe.

When you say "high quality" what you are describing is the Superior Quality. The confusing thing is that the RAW allows you to add this Quality after the fact to a previously acquired "normal" weapon but it's just a system thing. You can take a normal weapon and make it a Superior one by swapping out parts and such or you can buy a superior model off the shelf, either way it's now a "better" weapon. The RAW represents this by giving you a choice of upgrades, more accurate, lighter construction etc., further bonuses requiring Mods and/or Jury Rigging.

If I may draw my line of thought a bit longer we'll find that to make these named weapons meaningful they will have to be provided with stats that you cannot reach with the normal attachments and mods. Accurate being one obvious example. Slow-firing combined with a higher damage or range is another. And this is what i think the customization rules encourages us to do: Find qualities not encompassed by the attachments in the CR and make your own weapons. But yes, those weapons should also cap quicker in terms of cusomization - and that fits very well in terms of both munchkinification, economy and technology.

Sure, you could make a named weapon that actually is a "bundle" of a normal weapon with a preinstalled attachment and/or a mod, but it would have to be somewhat cheaper than buying the parts separate since there are no left over parts and customizing them should yield some kind of setback a normal weapon customization wouldn't do.

What you seem to want is a Superior'er Quality, one that gives you unavailable, multiple and/or higher bonuses than the current RAW provides. Some of the unavailable qualities are covered with Talents, and the maximums of each type of bonus is in place to keep from overloading combat with too many stacking bonuses.

The other thing to keep in mind is the Scale and Granularity of the system. Like Skills, weapon categories are pretty broad and a Heavy Blaster is any of dozens, hundreds even, of individual makes and models, each marginally different but essentially no different mechanically within the systems scale. All heavy Blasters preform close enough within the Scale of the system that different models are irrelevant. Modding and attachments is how you make them mechanically different and the Mods currently allowed and their costs and bonuses have been playtested to work at the scale of combat.

A single Boost or Difficulty die is a significant potential change to the outcome of a combat roll, so adding a couple more to a weapon over the current maximums is a big deal. Basically if five potential bonuses on our example of the DL-44 isn't sufficient then you have clearly crossed into Munchkinland.

In any case the system gives you the ability to Mod weapons in a balanced way whether you Mod them after the fact or buy a pre-Modded off the shelf it's doesn't matter. What does matter is breaking the current limits to bonuses in place to keep combat from getting out of hand.

I agree with what you are saying, and like you I'm not looking for a way into Munchkinland. But I am looking for something between Superior and 'not' Superior quality. (Let's drop the DL-44 for a while, the way it is depicted here is far too good for my liking.) There are different and in some ways better weapons in CR though, take a look at the Riot Gun in the Adversary section page 401. The devs are already hinting about new weapons (Dangerous Covenants) and named weapons (Suns of Fortune). A duelling pistol? I could certainly see a rich and excentric Rival boosting such a gun - maybe it's a light blaster pistol with a Accurate 1-2 quality, a slighly reduced damage and no stun setting. Lootable? You bet! Upgradeable? Yes, and... maybe you'll lose the Accurate quality. And I don't see talents confined to just Career Talents either, due to the inate talent quality. Would I allow more inate talent upgrades than those listen in CR? Yes, but they have to make sense and I'd be careful about the ranked ones. Though I can't think of any talents appropriate for this right now, but maybe one of my players eventually do. So in my mind, the system encourages us to keep exploring for more options - but with caution of course. It comes down to being perceptive about what my players want.

Hey, Sturn! I have a small suggestion for your cut-down barrel slugthrower mod, why not consider also lowering the damage by one point. A friend of mine pointed out to me that the bullet accelerates during its entire time travelling in the barrel, thus a bullet exiting a shorter barrel will have a lower velocity. It would make sense that this might have some impact on the damage. What do you think?

Hey, Sturn! I have a small suggestion for your cut-down barrel slugthrower mod, why not consider also lowering the damage by one point. A friend of mine pointed out to me that the bullet accelerates during its entire time travelling in the barrel, thus a bullet exiting a shorter barrel will have a lower velocity. It would make sense that this might have some impact on the damage. What do you think?

I considered exactly that and don't recall now why I didn't do that. Your friend is correct. I will go take a look again perhaps I will be reminded why I didn't use that or consider it again.

Everything I've done regarding new attachments or house rules were done so with playability #1 and realism #2.

ETA: After looking at what I did, I think cutting down damage AND range was too much of a penalty for what you gain. That playability issue plus the fact that velocity is reduced, but not significantly so, I think I will leave it at reduced range. Why range? Reduced barrel length does reduce accuracy at longer ranges.