The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Dueling Sabers Feedback & Discussion
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Dueling Sabers Feedback & Discussion Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:
It just wouldn't happen fast.

The speed of it was the most unreasonable part. It was literally like cutting butter. From another ship attached to the outer hull, he quickly cuts a large circle into it in about 2 seconds, and it falls into a hallway. The hole was big enough for a big Lasat to get through. And they did this without space suits, just filling their airlock with air and trusting the seal would keep during this violent entry.

Universal Airlock, maybe?

I treat the Clone Wars and Rebels in much the same way I treat the TotJ comics, in that I don't mind mining them for ideas, and that the storylines we see are essentially what happened, so long as one doesn't pay too close attention to the details.

Quote:
I couldn't find a video of it, but it reminded me a lot of this:

Robin's lightsaber

Laughing
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darklighter79 wrote:
I do not think that dropping fusion cutter on the ground would eventually mean the destruction of an entire planet.

I'm just gonna leave this here...

Quote:
That's not WEG had in mind when designing this rule.

Is it? I can't tell from the way the rule was written. It's left up to the GM to place a cap on it, with no clear guidelines as to how far is too far. I did this in my own campaign by applying a x2 = +1D rule of thumb to coordination bonuses, which I also applied here. A simple "+1D per round" or +1D per cube added" is a poorly-thought-out rule included simply for the sake of having a rule, not because it is a good rule.

Quote:
Anyway, in case of any doubts, be mindful of your signature. Cool

I am; I'm the one who is advocating for a house rule that caps damage before it gets out of hand. I suggest you follow your own advice.

Quote:
Cover - maybe. I meant a situation of tense combat with larger groups. The attacker set his dodge because he is targeted by other characters. And there comes a Jedi deflected shot.

But think about it. When in the films do you see anyone even attempt to dodge when a shot comes back at them? It almost seems to happen so fast that a reaction isn't possible

I only brought Up Cover because a character shooting at a Jedi from behind cover is a smaller target, and thus more difficult to hit.

Quote:
Why only Sense skill for deflect?

I concur, and will add another reason. Using the Force Attribute automatically gives Jedi a 2D-3D bump in starting Force skill level, so stacking Sense + Lightsaber + 3D deserves a little nerfing.



Quote:
Yes, my example was for a single set (6D). Triple set (18D) would take of course much longer - like 9 rounds if rule of 2D per round applied.

But at that damage level, your blast doors can soak as much damage as an MC80 Cruiser.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Darklighter79
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 May 2018
Posts: 222

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:

Is it? I can't tell from the way the rule was written. It's left up to the GM to place a cap on it, with no clear guidelines as to how far is too far. I did this in my own campaign by applying a x2 = +1D rule of thumb to coordination bonuses, which I also applied here. A simple "+1D per round" or +1D per cube added" is a poorly-thought-out rule included simply for the sake of having a rule, not because it is a good rule.

Well, I want to avoid situation in which poor damage LS roll would keep player from making any damage. LS would not bounce off, ever.*
*not including all those special materials and shields.

Quote:
But think about it. When in the films do you see anyone even attempt to dodge when a shot comes back at them? It almost seems to happen so fast that a reaction isn't possible

And this is why I am leaning towards the idea that dodge, even if declared in that round against regular shooters, should not be applied vs Jedi's deflected shot.

Quote:
But at that damage level, your blast doors can soak as much damage as an MC80 Cruiser.

But the difference is: blast doors are destroyed and MC80 suffers no damage as such a small hole does not affect its combat capabilities at all.
_________________
Don’t Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darklighter79 wrote:
Well, I want to avoid situation in which poor damage LS roll would keep player from making any damage. LS would not bounce off, ever.*
*not including all those special materials and shields.

Jut because Jedi make it look easy doesn't mean that just anyone should be able to pick up a lightsaber and cut through anything with it. A Difficult weapon with the added chance of slashing yourself if you screw it up badly enough just might actually bounce off a dense enough surface, or at least resist taking any serious damage.

Quote:
And this is why I am leaning towards the idea that dodge, even if declared in that round against regular shooters, should not be applied vs Jedi's deflected shot.

I tend to agree. In fact, considering many of the Concealment modifiers are based on visibility (smoke, darkness, etc), they should be ignored as well. I wrote that into my Combat Sense / Lightsaber re-write, but didn't think as far as applying it to deflecting blaster bolts.

Quote:
But the difference is: blast doors are destroyed and MC80 suffers no damage as such a small hole does not affect its combat capabilities at all.

Where is that written down? The RAW doesn't make the distinction, even though common sense dictates it is impossible. Look at your version another way: it takes the combined batteries of an ISD or similar ship to destroy an MC80. Are you arguing that a simple bridge blast door would take the combined power of 20 turbolaser batteries to punch through it? Or that a device that can be held in one hand can deliver an equivalent amount of damage to those same massed turbolaser batteries?

The only official method of dice stacking is the Coordination rules, and even assuming you get a +2D bonus from layering multiple blast doors over the top of eachother, that's still just 8D Character-Scale.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Darklighter79
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 May 2018
Posts: 222

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Jut because Jedi make it look easy doesn't mean that just anyone should be able to pick up a lightsaber and cut through anything with it. A Difficult weapon with the added chance of slashing yourself if you screw it up badly enough just might actually bounce off a dense enough surface, or at least resist taking any serious damage.

Hurting oneself results from lacking of practice in swinging. Not from touching something dense. Saber never bounces of doors, wooden or triple durasteel. It simply take a longer time to went through. Body Points rule would be better here with toughness option, because this wound level option tends to lead to some "strange" interpretations.
If someone would like to attack a walker with a saber but failed to roll above it's hull (which is very likely) I would say his attack left a hot, thin trail of molted armor, but none damage was done to the superstructure as the armor is too thick.

Quote:
Where is that written down? The RAW doesn't make the distinction, even though common sense dictates it is impossible.

The RAW clearly admits that rules do not cover every situation, hence all the optional rules / updates in later books. Also the RAW states:

Quote:
Use Your Judgment. You have to use your judgment to
decide what is and isn’t possible in the game. You have to decide
what’s “reasonable” and “in the spirit of Star Wars,” making sure
that no one takes advantage of the game system.

This is what I did.

Anyway, 2nd edition put clear limits: characters scale could damage max to starfighter scale. Does this mean that Grevious should not be able to break window with a staff in his destroyer according to this rule, or bend outer hull plating with his claw? Nope, because of the above quote.

Quote:
Look at your version another way: it takes the combined batteries of an ISD or similar ship to destroy an MC80. Are you arguing that a simple bridge blast door would take the combined power of 20 turbolaser batteries to punch through it? Or that a device that can be held in one hand can deliver an equivalent amount of damage to those same massed turbolaser batteries?

No it's not the same damage. Turbolaser batteries will damage the ship. A person with a lightsaber or hand blaster will not. Not even with FP and Calling Upon the Dark Side. Much as any person shooting ground with a blaster, won't cause any damage to the planet.
Using again the real life reference: if a firearm bullet penetrates skin, one is wounded or worse. If a doctor penetrated skin with a needle one or more time, one is not even stunned. Same with hull: damage vs no damage, yet there's a hole.
_________________
Don’t Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darklighter79 wrote:
Anyway, 2nd edition put clear limits: characters scale could damage max to starfighter scale.

That rule has been supplanted by the 2R&E / REUP method, which uses dice bonuses instead of dice caps. Under the most current rule (as well as the modified system I use that is derived from it), the only way to limit smaller-scale from damaging larger-scale is to not allow their damage dice to reach high enough to damage it.

Now, what you have is a serviceable rule in isolation, but I want a rule that takes the larger system into account, where I don't have to explain why a Character-Scale blast door with an 18D soak isn't the same 18D of soak on a Capital-Scale MC80 Cruiser. I much prefer a system that caps Character-Scale damage at reasonable levels. The x2 = +1D Coordination method (from which my cumulative damage rule is derived) accomplishes that nicely, allowing bonuses to scale up appreciably at lower levels while keeping them from getting too out of hand as numbers increase.

Quote:
Does this mean that Grievous should not be able to break window with a staff in his destroyer according to this rule, or bend outer hull plating with his claw? Nope, because of the above quote.

Bearing my above in mind, this would be accomplished by giving the window pane a strength of 6D or 7D at Character-Scale, enough to be smashed out for the purposes of the scene, but nowhere near enough to inflict any appreciable damage to the ship as a whole (effectively, -4D Capital Scale).

For the purposes of the blast door in TPM, I'd give it the standard 6D for the first set of doors, then bump it up to 8D or 9D for the second and third set.

There is also room for a Time Taken rule based on how well the Damage roll did, something like:
    Notes: Roll damage once per round against the target's Hull-2D. On a successful Damage roll, compare the result to the following table:
      Damage Inflicted = Time Taken To Cut Hole
      Lightly Damaged = 1 Minute (12 rounds)
      Heavily Damaged = 30 seconds (6 rounds)
      Severely Damaged = 15 seconds (3 rounds)
      Destroyed = 5 seconds (1 round)
    A fully cut hull breach is 1 meter wide by 2 meters tall.


Quote:
No it's not the same damage. Turbolaser batteries will damage the ship. A person with a lightsaber or hand blaster will not. Not even with FP and Calling Upon the Dark Side. Much as any person shooting ground with a blaster, won't cause any damage to the planet.
Using again the real life reference: if a firearm bullet penetrates skin, one is wounded or worse. If a doctor penetrated skin with a needle one or more time, one is not even stunned. Same with hull: damage vs no damage, yet there's a hole.

I agree; it is not the same damage. The problem is, your rule makes it the same by assigning a set of heavy blast doors the same ability to soak damage as a 1,200-meter-long battle cruiser. A blast door should have a lower soak than a battlecruiser, and any rule reflecting cumulative damage to that door should both accurately represent what we see on screen and be part of a consistent rule system.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Darklighter79
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 May 2018
Posts: 222

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I much prefer a system that caps Character-Scale damage at reasonable levels. The x2 = +1D Coordination method (from which my cumulative damage rule is derived) accomplishes that nicely, allowing bonuses to scale up appreciably at lower levels while keeping them from getting too out of hand as numbers increase.


Well, if it prevents any damage that would influence the combat effectiveness of a ship, it's good.

Quote:
For the purposes of the blast door in TPM, I'd give it the standard 6D for the first set of doors, then bump it up to 8D or 9D for the second and third set.


Then there's no problem with hull which requires much more work.

Quote:
I agree; it is not the same damage. The problem is, your rule makes it the same by assigning a set of heavy blast doors the same ability to soak damage as a 1,200-meter-long battle cruiser. A blast door should have a lower soak than a battlecruiser, and any rule reflecting cumulative damage to that door should both accurately represent what we see on screen and be part of a consistent rule system.


This is for simplicity. Hardness of an object is, well, how hard to damage it is. But hull of a starship is somewhat broader in definition and abstract (armor, systems durability, engine effectiveness, mass indication for tractor beam, ect.) If I wanted to be extra precise I had to determine STR for each possible access way - technical hatch, weapon battery, garbage hangar, window, ect.)
_________________
Don’t Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darklighter79 wrote:
Quote:
For the purposes of the blast door in TPM, I'd give it the standard 6D for the first set of doors, then bump it up to 8D or 9D for the second and third set.


Then there's no problem with hull which requires much more work.

Don't forget that a character trying to cut through the hull of a star destroyer is also going to be able to "call his shot." If he's trying to cut through the ship's main belt armor, then obviously it's going to take some time. The way I play it, a character would be rolling against a +12D modifier to try to damage a Capital Ship's Hull, but would receive a 1/3 accuracy bonus from their To Hit roll (generally, a +4D bonus to damage).

Plus, again, if we're just talking about trying to cut through a piece of metal to get to the other side, that's not the same thing as trying to inflict actual damage. The only real WEG treatment of hull cutting was the Plasma Torch Forced Boarding Device, where the Hull of the target resisted at -2D, and that's before you figure in scale modifiers to accuracy (which figures into accuracy damage).

Quote:
If I wanted to be extra precise I had to determine STR for each possible access way - technical hatch, weapon battery, garbage hangar, window, ect.)

Why? Just use the WEG rules for Sample Protection (2R&E, page 94), and treat a ship's Hull as 8D (compared to a standard blast door's 6D)
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been doing some thinking about my write-ups of Forms II-VII as Advanced Skills. My main conclusion is that I've made them too powerful; the CP bargain provided by stacking an Advanced Skill with the prerequisite is already powerful enough, so providing a conditional doubling bonus is really too much. I'm still thinking of exactly how I want to do this, but the bare bones of my rethink is to apply conditional restrictions to when the Advanced Skills can stack. Short version:
    Form I - Unchanged (Standard Lightsaber / Melee Combat skill)

    Form II
    -Stacks with Prereq on Offense or Defense at Close Range only

    Form III
    -Stacks with Prereq on Defense Only, and to Sense against Blasters

    Form IV
    -Split between Attack/Defend or a Free Full Dodge (must put minimum of 1D in each)

    Form V
    -Stacks with Prereq on Attack Only (can be split between Lightsaber or redirecting Blaster Bolts), and to Sense against Blasters.

    Form VI
    -Split between Attack/Defend and Sense on Blaster Deflection (must put a minimum of 1D in each)

    Form VII
    -No Stacking Restrictions. Willpower rule unchanged.

_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2419

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I've been doing some thinking about my write-ups of Forms II-VII as Advanced Skills. My main conclusion is that I've made them too powerful; the CP bargain provided by stacking an Advanced Skill with the prerequisite is already powerful enough, so providing a conditional doubling bonus is really too much. I'm still thinking of exactly how I want to do this, but the bare bones of my rethink is to apply conditional restrictions to when the Advanced Skills can stack. Short version:
    Form I - Unchanged (Standard Lightsaber / Melee Combat skill)

    Form II
    -Stacks with Prereq on Offense or Defense at Close Range only

    Form III
    -Stacks with Prereq on Defense Only, and to Sense against Blasters

    Form IV
    -Split between Attack/Defend or a Free Full Dodge (must put minimum of 1D in each)

    Form V
    -Stacks with Prereq on Attack Only (can be split between Lightsaber or redirecting Blaster Bolts), and to Sense against Blasters.

    Form VI
    -Split between Attack/Defend and Sense on Blaster Deflection (must put a minimum of 1D in each)

    Form VII
    -No Stacking Restrictions. Willpower rule unchanged.


For form V, did you mean to stack with control or sense?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
For form V, did you mean to stack with control or sense?

I'm building this around a 1E-based version of Lightsaber Combat, with aspects of Lightsaber Combat folded into the Combat Sense power. Under that rule version, a Jedi rolls Melee Combat for lightsaber duels and Sense for Deflecting Blaster bolts (augmented by any bonuses from Combat Sense).

So, because Form V is offense oriented, its skill dice is treated as a Dice Pool that can be applied either to Melee Combat when on Offense or to Sense rolls when controlling deflected blaster bolts. It also gets stacked with Sense on rolls to deflect blaster bolts in the first place.

For example, say a character has Melee Combat 6D, Sense 5D and Form V 5D.

If he is in a lightsaber duel, he rolls 11D (Melee Combat + Form V) so long as he is attacking

If he's deflecting Blaster bolts, he rolls 10D (Sense + Form V) and also adds 5D (subject to MAPs) to any blaster redirection rolls.

If he's mixing and matching (i.e. dueling and trying to redirect blaster bolts), he splits his 5D in Form V between the Melee Combat and the redirect roll (i.e. puts 3D to stack with Melee Combat while applying 2D to blaster redirection rolls).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something I'm considering for Form VI is watering down the dice pool even further by adding Persuasion as a prerequisite, and possibly Discernment, as well, once I get the rules hammered out. To explain what I'm thinking, here are the relevant portions of the original description of Form VI, with the portions relevant to this rule highlighted:
Quote:
The Form balances the emphases of other forms with overall moderation, in keeping with the Jedi quest to achieve true harmony and justice without resorting to the rule of power.. It is considered the "diplomat's Form" because it is less intensive in its demands than the other disciplines, allowing Jedi to spend more time developing their skills in perception, political strategy and negotiation. In practice, Form VI is a combination of Forms I, III, IV, and V. Young Jedi spend their first few years studying Form I and then a year or two with each additional Form before completing their training. By comparison, a Form VI master will spend at least ten years studying only that Form after completing the basic Form I training. Form VI well suits the modern Jedi's role in the galaxy, in which a Knight overly trained in martial combat might be at a loss to resolve a complex political conflict between star systems. However, full masters of other Forms sometimes consider Form VI to be insufficiently demanding.

Basically, Form VI attempted to combine Forms II through V into a single, balanced Form that ended up too watered down to be useful in serious combat. The article specifically states that all the Form VI Jedi who fought at Geonosis died in the arena battle.

So, what I'm thinking is this: As with Form IV and V, treat Form VI as a dice pool, with the restriction that the character must place 1D (if available) in each prerequisite, regardless of whether it is used in combat or not.

So, say for example, that Form VI has prerequisites of Melee Combat, Persuasion and Discernment. A character with 3D in Form VI would have to apply 1D each to Persuasion and Discernment even while in combat. This would have the effect of watering down combat skills by diluting the dice pool with "diplomatic" skills.

Of course, this would give a Form VI adept an advantage in the Dun Moch / Form Zero psychological warfare rules...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2419

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does that solution feel right to you? Often, when trying to work up a house rule, I come up with lots of ideas, but getting one that FEELS right is a struggle.


I still require another couple of read-throughs for your system to fully grasp the nuances of it, so I'm reluctant to suggest any solutions myself.

In general, here are my thoughts: perhaps instead of forcing dice into a potentially irrelevant skill, what if you reduce the effect of dice allocation for combat, but allow it to be normal for diplomacy. For example, let form 6 fully stack with persuasion, but not with lightsaber: for every 2D allocated, you only get to roll 1D additional?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11746
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Does that solution feel right to you? Often, when trying to work up a house rule, I come up with lots of ideas, but getting one that FEELS right is a struggle.

In general, yes. The gist of what I get from the original description of Form VI is "watered down", as in, a Form that tried too hard to be too many things at once and ended up not doing them particularly well. Requiring the (A) Skill dice to be treated as Dice Pool achieves that effect, as a Form VI adept will have advantages in negotiations and diplomacy over more martially-oriented Jedi, but will be at an effective -2D in lightsaber combat when compared to a Jedi who spent an equal number of CP in Forms II-V


Quote:
I still require another couple of read-throughs for your system to fully grasp the nuances of it, so I'm reluctant to suggest any solutions myself.

Don't read too much into it at the moment; I'm still grappling with the implications and balancing issues myself.

Quote:
In general, here are my thoughts: perhaps instead of forcing dice into a potentially irrelevant skill, what if you reduce the effect of dice allocation for combat, but allow it to be normal for diplomacy. For example, let form 6 fully stack with persuasion, but not with lightsaber: for every 2D allocated, you only get to roll 1D additional?

Of the two, I prefer dice pools because that's something that's already been included to some degree in the game. I'm using it in a couple other Forms as well (IV and V), so the consistency of using dice pools makes it simpler and easier to follow.

Also, an effective -2D flat penalty doesn't restrict Form VI nearly as badly as a 2-for-1 penalty would, and I don't want to make the Form that much lower than all the others. If I understand you correctly, it would effectively require Form VI adepts to pay quadruple the CP cost to be able to stack with Lightsaber / Melee Combat (the original x2 for the Advanced Skill, compounded by x2 for limiting the Jedi to 1D for every 2D of Advanced Skill dice), while all the other Forms would continue to advance at x2 CP cost.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2419

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Naaman wrote:
Does that solution feel right to you? Often, when trying to work up a house rule, I come up with lots of ideas, but getting one that FEELS right is a struggle.

In general, yes. The gist of what I get from the original description of Form VI is "watered down", as in, a Form that tried too hard to be too many things at once and ended up not doing them particularly well. Requiring the (A) Skill dice to be treated as Dice Pool achieves that effect, as a Form VI adept will have advantages in negotiations and diplomacy over more martially-oriented Jedi, but will be at an effective -2D in lightsaber combat when compared to a Jedi who spent an equal number of CP in Forms II-V


Quote:
I still require another couple of read-throughs for your system to fully grasp the nuances of it, so I'm reluctant to suggest any solutions myself.

Don't read too much into it at the moment; I'm still grappling with the implications and balancing issues myself.

Quote:
In general, here are my thoughts: perhaps instead of forcing dice into a potentially irrelevant skill, what if you reduce the effect of dice allocation for combat, but allow it to be normal for diplomacy. For example, let form 6 fully stack with persuasion, but not with lightsaber: for every 2D allocated, you only get to roll 1D additional?

Of the two, I prefer dice pools because that's something that's already been included to some degree in the game. I'm using it in a couple other Forms as well (IV and V), so the consistency of using dice pools makes it simpler and easier to follow.

Also, an effective -2D flat penalty doesn't restrict Form VI nearly as badly as a 2-for-1 penalty would, and I don't want to make the Form that much lower than all the others. If I understand you correctly, it would effectively require Form VI adepts to pay quadruple the CP cost to be able to stack with Lightsaber / Melee Combat (the original x2 for the Advanced Skill, compounded by x2 for limiting the Jedi to 1D for every 2D of Advanced Skill dice), while all the other Forms would continue to advance at x2 CP cost.


I guess it would work out that way (paying double... or, ultimately, quadruple). I didn't really think of it from a CP cost standpoint... only a character concept standpoint: a form 6 user is less interested in fighting than in negotiating, and so form 6 would be more like a little "bonus" to lightsaber combat while his negotiation skills would reap the full benefits.

Also, I've resent via email that document in .doc format. In it, I've tried to articulate Form 6 as one that benefits the consular type of Jedi while also emphasizing the combative uses of the force (such as we see lots of Jedi do in the prequels and other shows that came after). If you see anything inspiring, feel free.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0