Hello again everyone,

Well I have the Suns of Fortune Book now and I am enjoying it very much. I was going through the book's weapons and saw a bow. I thought that was cool, but all I did was look at the chart. So now I have gone through to read the descriptions on all the items and what not and something stuck me as odd with the bow. The standard ammunition of the compound bow is a broad head arrows, but you have the option to get a little more bang for your buck with the explosive tipped arrows or the stun arrows. Now here come the confusing part. The book says if these arrows are used, use the secondary profile given on table 3-1.

Corellian Compund bow Skill : Ranged Heavy Range : Medium Special Cumbersome 3 Yes there are other stuff, but those are the most important for my question.

Now the arrows are the same range, but use ranged light as a skill and lose the cumbersome special

MY biggest question is why does it change skill? Should it not still use range heavy and it shouldnt lose its cumbersome rating right? Is this some sort of mistake? Cause it just doesnt make any sense to me, or my roommate who also plays in our group. I would like to hear what everyone thinks or if someone just has the answers that would be great.

Thank you for everyone's help,

Ullr

P.S. Sorry if I posted this in the wrong area, or it has already been addressed

My guess is that it's a misprint and the other arrows should use Ranged (Heavy) as well.

My guess is that it's a misprint and the other arrows should use Ranged (Heavy) as well.

If this is a typo, I'm very disappointed in the editing process this book went through. This was an extremely obvious error. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in future releases.

*shrug* I'm sure if it's an error the editor's a bit embarrassed about it but it's not the end of the world.

They're only human and they're working on a lot of stuff.

Perhaps those are thrown darts? In the way that the 40KRPGs list grenade ammunition identically to thrown grenades.

No, it's probably a typo.

My guess is that it's a misprint and the other arrows should use Ranged (Heavy) as well.

If this is a typo, I'm very disappointed in the editing process this book went through. This was an extremely obvious error. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in future releases.

As far as errors go, it's fairly minor. Given the number of products that a big name company like WotC, White Wolf, or FFG produces, it's not unheard of for things to slip thru the editing process. The fact that the core rulebook itself has errata is proof enough that even "obvious" mistakes can make it into the printed product, such as page 227 and the listing of the Surveillance skill (which got removed in the early weeks of the Beta) or the Wayfarer not having a listed Sensor Range.

Is it annoying? Yeah, but it's not the end of the world or a sign of gross incompetence. Given their errata for EotE is about a page total of text out of a 400+ page book, and the other books aren't riddled with errors, I'd say it's a pretty good sign that while the quality may not be 100% perfect, it's still going to be pretty **** good.

I submitted a question about this to FFG for clarification but I haven't received a response. At this point I probably won't. At my table, I would probably still have them use the Raged (Heavy) skill.

I submitted a question about this to FFG for clarification but I haven't received a response. At this point I probably won't. At my table, I would probably still have them use the Raged (Heavy) skill.

So I'm not the only one that doesn't get answers. I don't feel special anymore.

Yeah, I think it's saying as darts. Of course, it would have been nicer if this was specified (i.e. Explosive and stun arrows can only be used with a bow OR Explosive and stun arrows can be thrown if desired, but add so-and-so setbacks and difficulty increases/upgrades for doing so).

As for if it was a typo, it happens all the time. Novels, which rely heavily on the right message getting across, have typos all the time. A book that is meant less to tell a story and more to inform is allotted some issues (although I admit, there was a profuse amount in SoF), and this, while being rather important, is fine in my book. I'd just look past it.

It's possible the writer was thinking of them as grenades, which caused the mistake, or the developers thought it might be cool if you could throw them like darts (but as a person who's held a bow and shot it, arrows aren't too thrower friendly), but forgot to specify. Until someone gets a solid response on the issue, we'll just have to settle with saying it falls under the same usage of through the bow.

(Although, it may be that the range is accurate, as an arrow laden down with a small bomb is more likely to fly a shorter distance.)

I say error. It the simple and most likely answer.

After rereading it... It hast to be an error.

I agree with HD. Any other interpretation is gaming the system....

My guess is that it's a misprint and the other arrows should use Ranged (Heavy) as well.

If this is a typo, I'm very disappointed in the editing process this book went through. This was an extremely obvious error. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in future releases.

As far as errors go, it's fairly minor. Given the number of products that a big name company like WotC, White Wolf, or FFG produces, it's not unheard of for things to slip thru the editing process. The fact that the core rulebook itself has errata is proof enough that even "obvious" mistakes can make it into the printed product, such as page 227 and the listing of the Surveillance skill (which got removed in the early weeks of the Beta) or the Wayfarer not having a listed Sensor Range.

Is it annoying? Yeah, but it's not the end of the world or a sign of gross incompetence. Given their errata for EotE is about a page total of text out of a 400+ page book, and the other books aren't riddled with errors, I'd say it's a pretty good sign that while the quality may not be 100% perfect, it's still going to be pretty **** good.

Fair enough. I am also concerned we will never get official errata or statements on these mistakes with the number of books they are releasing. I'm sure you recall that WotC had a similar problem, they released errata for only six books as I recall. I'll wait and see what the future holds.

Um, we actually have gotten official errata for the EotE core rulebook, which can be found under Support on the product main page.

In terms of WotC, one of the major problems with getting errata was that any changes to the books had to be approved by LucasFilm's licensing department. It could be that FFG is operating under the same restriction. The Beta Updates are likely an exception because those are updates being made to an as-yet unpublished product (the corresponding core rulebook).

It's probably not much different than dealing with any licensed product, in that any changes, even obvious corrections, need to be approved by the license holder. If one is lucky or on really good terms with the license holder (such as is the apparent case with Jim Butcher and Fred Hicks/Evil Hat regarding the Dresden Files FATE RPG), then the approval process may be very quick. With bigger companies and/or licensed properties, the approval process can drag on. Just ask the folks at Green Ronin about how the approval process has gone with regards to releasing Set 3 of their Dragon Age RPG, which was supposed to have been out last year and has been stalled at BioWare for approvals, to the extent that as soon as Green Ronin gets the green light on the Player's Guide portion, they're going to sell that as a PDF right away as a way of stemming the tide of "when is Set 3 going to be released?" questions.

Um, we actually have gotten official errata for the EotE core rulebook, which can be found under Support on the product main page.

Yea, I'm aware, I'm talking about future supplements and books. With Saga Edition we got errata for 5 or 6 books and then just had to deal with the mistakes/typos/imbalances in the rest of the books. It was obnoxious. I just don't want to see the same thing happened to Edge of the Empire. If I have to put the blame with LucasArts, that's fine.

I'm guessing it's a typo. I wouldn't get to worked up over it. I've never met a gamebook that wasn't rife with typos. Even the most professionally crafted, multi-edited book has a sizable errata.

I'm going to go the other way and say As Designed.I would imagine that there is a difference between shooting someone with an arrow and hitting with an explosion. There's a difference between damaging an opponent with a pointy stick and landing an explosive tipped arrow in a location that would maximize an explosion.

I'm going to play Devils Advocate and side with both ideas, arguing that it's purly subjective to the situation/open to GM interpretation. Here's my reasoning...

It could be intended...
It could be refering to the ability to throw an explosive arrow as a missile (thrown dart).
When shooting from a bow, you need both hands (Ranged [Heavy]). When throwing a dart, you only need one hand (Ranged [Light]).

You can't really throw an arrow and do as much damage as shooting one, but you can throw an explosive tip and do equal damage (thus why it didn't apply to the standard tips).

With this scenario, I would argue that the range would be the error - you can't throw a dart (weighted or not) as far as you can shoot one. But this could also be looked as intentional as you can throw a dart further than you could a net or bola and the range bands are ...flexible... anyway.

It could be an error...

It could be trying to say you use different skills to shoot different ammo.

I shoot Bow & Arrow a lot; I've used compound and recurve; I've shot target point, boradhead and blunt. It doesn't matter what ammo you use; the power to pull the string is all the same. The ammo only adds slight changes to the behavior of targeting or the flight. Just by changing the ammo, you wouldn't change the skills needed (especially in a game like this; slug thrower rifle vs blaster rifle doesn't change skills).

It could be that they intended to make it one way, changed it near the end of production and missed one of them.

It could be that they intended to specify when thrown, but forgot to add that one sentence.

All-in-all, it can be clarified with GM discretion.

On a side note; This is a pretty cool topic. I was planning on buying either Sons of Fortune or Beyond the Rim with my next paycheck, but couldn't decide which one. I think this tid-bit about bows is enough for me to decide on SoF. I have a player in my group that wants to play a Nelvaanian: raised in the tribe, left the planet and is finding his place in the Galaxy... But he still uses some tribal skills (hunting with spear, throwing knives and nets). I think a bow would be a cool possibility for him.

I didn't take it as a error at all. If you throw the arrows, it is indeed a light weapon. But then that probably isn't very relivent and it probably would have setback dice galore from being used improperly.

Explosive darts however have their damage inflicted by the blast, not the impact of the shot, hence it could be chucked like a light weapon and inflict damage, and with the strong arm feat you can fling it up to medium range.

Explosive darts however have their damage inflicted by the blast, not the impact of the shot, hence it could be chucked like a light weapon and inflict damage, and with the strong arm feat you can fling it up to medium range.

Worst round of Lawn Darts ever. . . .

I recieved a response from Mr. Stewart.

Thanks for your question, and I apologize for the confusion. As it turns out, this is not an error, but reflects the very different ammunition types (and skills required to use them) in this unique weapon.

Firing a regular arrow from a bow relies a great deal on the user's physical strength, both to draw the bow and to keeping the draw taut while aiming and firing. Thus damage and accuracy are related to the user's strength, hence the Ranged Heavy skill and Cumbersome rating.

However, both explosive-tipped and stun arrows are very different from "regular" arrows. Each of these arrows replaces the low-tech broadhead tip of the arrow with a sophisticated payload. In the case of the explosive-tipped arrow, this payload is essentially a small frag grenade. In the case of the stun arrow, it is a stun-discharge "pad." Neither has the same aerodynamics as a regular arrow, and neither relies on the user's strength in the same way (in essence, as long as the arrow can be drawn enough to be fired, it doesn't matter how hard it hits the target; the explosive damage or stun discharge does all the work).

To reflect this, we used two different skills.

Of course, if you have a character who wants to make a habit out of using a Corellian compound bow, you could always invent a custom skill that covers both aspects of bow-use. Ranged (Bow) is certainly unorthodox, but fits into the reason custom skills exist in the first place. In this case, all three payloads for the bow would change to Ranged (Bow) for that character, and you and your GM could work together to determine which Ranged (Light) or Ranged (Heavy) talents would apply to your new skill. I'm certain that, given the other ranged options available, inventing this skill would not prove to be overly powerful.

Hope this helps!

Interesting!

Hey, look at that! I was right (more or less)!

Okay, the skills as listed are correct... but what about the range? Still seems odd that you could throw an arrow with the same degree of ranged accuracy as you could fire it from a bow. From the way an arrow is designed, trying to throw it at the target isn't going to do you very much good.

Unless they figure that these particular "arrows" aren't really arrows and are simply customized lawn darts.

Donovan, I don't think it's about "throwing" the arrow, it's about firing it from a bow, isn't it?

Okay, the skills as listed are correct... but what about the range? Still seems odd that you could throw an arrow with the same degree of ranged accuracy as you could fire it from a bow. From the way an arrow is designed, trying to throw it at the target isn't going to do you very much good.

Unless they figure that these particular "arrows" aren't really arrows and are simply customized lawn darts.

Donovan, I don't think it's about "throwing" the arrow, it's about firing it from a bow, isn't it?

It sounds like the skills are all set for shooting the ammo (arrows) from the bow iteself, not being thrown.

I think what Donovan was getting at is the generic "thrown weapon" abilities (nets, bolas and grenades) where you use Ranged (Light) over Agility and range is short (unless you take the strong arm skill). Thus, if you're shooting an explosive tip arrow (it looses encumberance and range is short), then you're effectively throwing it the same distance. But throwing an arrow really doesn't work (unless they're just modified lawn darts).

My appologies if that's not what you meant, but I'm sure other people were thinking this as well.

My issue with these systems being correct is this...

1) drawing the string of a bow has nothing to do with the ammo you're using. You can draw a bow with no arrow and it's just the same difficulty as drawing it with a target point which is the same as drawing a broadhead and still the same as drawing a blunt tip - the power is measured in the bow and string, not the arrow.

2) the encumberance... changing ammo doesn't change the size of the bow. If I'm using broadheads then switch to blunt tips... I still can't fit my bow into my backpack. Where does the encumberance go to? If it's just the arrows loosing encumberance, it should be the other way around - an arrow tipped with a mini-grenade is going to have more encumberance than one tipped with a simple broadhead.

I don't own this book yet, so I may be misinterpreting the system. I plan on buying it this friday and when I do, I'll come back and make changes to my claims if needed.