Not at all. Even a machine can build a lightsaber. The only thing you have to be a Jedi(or Sith or whatever -- at least one level in any class with the "Build Lightsaber" ability) to do is to build a personalized lightsaber, and you have to be (character) level 7+ to do so.
Not at all. Even a machine can build a lightsaber. The only thing you have to be a Jedi(or Sith or whatever -- at least one level in any class with the "Build Lightsaber" ability) to do is to build a personalized lightsaber, and you have to be (cha
Not at all. Even a machine can build a lightsaber. The only thing you have to be a Jedi(or Sith or whatever -- at least one level in any class with the "Build Lightsaber" ability) to do is to build a personalized lightsaber, and you have to be (character) level 7+ to do so.
Actually, any class can build a lightsabre. As has been said, you just need 7 heroic levels, the Force Sensitivity feat, and Weapon proficiency (lightsabres).
Actually, any class can build a lightsabre. As has been said, you just need 7 heroic levels, the Force Sensitivity feat, and Weapon proficiency (lightsabres).
One question based on errata. It states that a vehicle's Reflex Defense includes the Dex modifier. Is this only the vehicle's dex modifier or both the vehicle's and the pilot's?
One question based on errata. It states that a vehicle's Reflex Defense includes the Dex modifier. Is this only the vehicle's dex modifier or both the vehicle's and the pilot's?
One question based on errata. It states that a vehicle's Reflex Defense includes the Dex modifier. Is this only the vehicle's dex modifier or both the vehicle's and the pilot's?
can someone help me with this? In Starships of the galaxy Imperial Star destroyer has 5 heavy turbo laser batteries listed in raged weapons (and many more other weapons, but ignore them) each one has attack bonus +15. Later when attacks are listed ISS has Heaby turbolase battery (5 gunners) Attack +15 does this mean a) in first entry there is a mistake and it should be +7 (bab +2, INT +5) b) SSI has 5 batteries, in each one there are 5 turbolasers, which gives 25 turbolasers mounter on the ship...
can someone help me with this?In Starships of the galaxy Imperial Star destroyer has 5 heavy turbo laser batteries listed in raged weapons (and many more other weapons, but ignore them) each one has attack bonus +15. Later when attacks are listed ISS
An ISD-II (the SotG ship) has +2 from crew, +5 from Int, + 8 from the Aid Another effects of Battery Fire (4 aiding guns).
So for the purposes of game play, yes, the ship has 25 cannons and they can be de-linked to fire individually (but you don't get battery fire bonuses to hit and damage).
An ISD-II (the SotG ship) has +2 from crew, +5 from Int, + 8 from the Aid Another effects of Battery Fire (4 aiding guns).So for the purposes of game play, yes, the ship has 25 cannons and they can be de-linked to fire individually (but you don't get
An ISD-II (the SotG ship) has +2 from crew, +5 from Int, + 8 from the Aid Another effects of Battery Fire (4 aiding guns).
So for the purposes of game play, yes, the ship has 25 cannons and they can be de-linked to fire individually (but you don't get battery fire bonuses to hit and damage).
Hmm... then his emplacement is HUGE 25 cannons, each takes 13 EP (10 for turbolaser, 2 for fire linked x4, 1 for quad cannon), gives 325 EP !! and there are other weapons: 5 turbolaser batteries, 25 cannons x 8 EP each = 200 EP 4 heavy ion cannon batteries, 20 cannons x 5 EP = 100EP 2 tracto beam batteries, 10 beams x 10 EP =100 EP
This gives 725 EP !!!! On the stock ship list battlecruiser has ONLY 200 EP, I know that pre-designed ships are better, but this...
Hmm... then his emplacement is HUGE25 cannons, each takes 13 EP (10 for turbolaser, 2 for fire linked x4, 1 for quad cannon), gives 325 EP !! and there are other weapons:5 turbolaser batteries, 25 cannons x 8 EP each = 200 EP4 heavy ion cannon batter
Woah... where is the firelinked aspect? They just have Heavy Turbolasers with no modifications.
And yes, I am a little dissatisfied with the Stock Ship design, so I assume they're supposed to represent small planetary fleet ships that don't have super designers and large construction yards.
Woah... where is the firelinked aspect? They just have Heavy Turbolasers with no modifications.And yes, I am a little dissatisfied with the Stock Ship design, so I assume they're supposed to represent small planetary fleet ships that don't have supe
Woah... where is the firelinked aspect? They just have Heavy Turbolasers with no modifications.
And yes, I am a little dissatisfied with the Stock Ship design, so I assume they're supposed to represent small planetary fleet ships that don't have super designers and large construction yards.
Turbolaser with no modifications: 7d10 dmg Imperial star destroyer turbolaser 11d10...
Second, Imperial star destroyer is battlecruiser when looking at stock ship design... it is there, but somehow someone managed to put 4 times more weapons on it than it should be possible.
..is what? Better?
It would be better if there those weapons took about 200-300 EP, more than 700 is munchkin build.
Turbolaser with no modifications: 7d10 dmgImperial star destroyer turbolaser 11d10...Second, Imperial star destroyer is battlecruiser when looking at stock ship design... it is there, but somehow someone managed to put 4 times more weapons on it than
Turbolaser with no modifications: 7d10 dmg Imperial star destroyer turbolaser 11d10...
Second, Imperial star destroyer is battlecruiser when looking at stock ship design... it is there, but somehow someone managed to put 4 times more weapons on it than it should be possible.
It would be better if there those weapons took about 200-300 EP, more than 700 is munchkin build.
Oh trust me, the worst part is the hangar bays. To accomodate 72 TIEs any variant (including bomber), and all the other crap, you'd need somewhere around 800.
Oh trust me, the worst part is the hangar bays. To accomodate 72 TIEs any variant (including bomber), and all the other crap, you'd need somewhere around 800.
Turbolaser with no modifications: 7d10 dmg Imperial star destroyer turbolaser 11d10...
Second, Imperial star destroyer is battlecruiser when looking at stock ship design... it is there, but somehow someone managed to put 4 times more weapons on it than it should be possible.
It would be better if there those weapons took about 200-300 EP, more than 700 is munchkin build.
Emphasis mine. Your statement implies that adding an unlimited amount of weapons and other upgrades (such as hangar space) is impossible according to the rules. I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that, that is not the case.
Emphasis mine. Your statement implies that adding an unlimited amount of weapons and other upgrades (such as hangar space) is impossible according to the rules. I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that, that is not the case.
Emphasis mine. Your statement implies that adding an unlimited amount of weapons and other upgrades (such as hangar space) is impossible according to the rules. I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that, that is not the case.
please explain how it would work you being the expert and me haveing never picked up my own copy of saga starships of the galaxy yet
please explain how it would work you being the expert and me haveing never picked up my own copy of saga starships of the galaxy yet
please explain how it would work you being the expert and me haveing never picked up my own copy of saga starships of the galaxy yet
So sorry to hear that. How unfortunate.
You can continue to add stuff if you run out of emplacement points (with no limit currently listed in the rules). The additional systems become exceedingly expensive, however, and if you do your ship is forever considered "used." Future condition track penalties to your ship may become persistent until repaired properly (rerouting power simply won't cut it).
So sorry to hear that. How unfortunate.You can continue to add stuff if you run out of emplacement points (with no limit currently listed in the rules). The additional systems become exceedingly expensive, however, and if you do your ship is forever
You can continue to add stuff if you run out of emplacement points (with no limit currently listed in the rules). The additional systems become exceedingly expensive, however, and if you do your ship is forever considered "used." Future condition track penalties to your ship may become persistent until repaired properly (rerouting power simply won't cut it).
ok i get it im gonna try and get it soon enough anyway
ok i get it im gonna try and get it soon enough anyway
Huge (TIE) requires a DC of 25 Gargantuan (X-Wing) requires a DC of 30 Colossal (transport) requires a DC of 35
After that you need to spend force points or destiny points up to colossal (station) as described on page 98-99.
SAT
Depends how big the starship is.Huge (TIE) requires a DC of 25Gargantuan (X-Wing) requires a DC of 30Colossal (transport) requires a DC of 35After that you need to spend force points or destiny points up to colossal (station) as described on page 98-
Huge (TIE) requires a DC of 25 Gargantuan (X-Wing) requires a DC of 30 Colossal (transport) requires a DC of 35
After that you need to spend force points or destiny points up to colossal (station) as described on page 98-99.
SAT
To add to this: If the ship you wish to move is being actively piloted, than the pilot gets to make an opposed grapple check against your Use the Force check to ruin your attempt completely.
To add to this: If the ship you wish to move is being actively piloted, than the pilot gets to make an opposed grapple check against your Use the Force check to ruin your attempt completely.
I thought so, because the book is vague as to how far though. The book in saga edition mentions that you can move it up to 6 squares. Probly meaning regular charecter scale.
I thought so, because the book is vague as to how far though. The book in saga edition mentions that you can move it up to 6 squares. Probly meaning regular charecter scale.
I thought so, because the book is vague as to how far though. The book in saga edition mentions that you can move it up to 6 squares. Probly meaning regular charecter scale.
It most likely means character scale and sadly, the SotG doesn't go into much detail about how Force Powers work in space combat.
Personally, I doubt it would be overpowering to allow someone to throw stuff in starship scale (when you are in space at least).
It most likely means character scale and sadly, the SotG doesn't go into much detail about how Force Powers work in space combat.Personally, I doubt it would be overpowering to allow someone to throw stuff in starship scale (when you are in space at
Had a tense moment along those lines in my last session. There was a skyhook falling into Coruscant, and one of my players figured out they could use a destiny point and hit a DC of 35 to move a freaking Colossal (station) size category object. And since the example for that size category is a DEATH STAR...
Thankfully, we also figured out they could only move it six squares. That nearly a very short adventure.
Had a tense moment along those lines in my last session. There was a skyhook falling into Coruscant, and one of my players figured out they could use a destiny point and hit a DC of 35 to move a freaking Colossal (station) size category object. And s
This came up in our game last night. To break a Damage Threshold, is it the damage the attack rolls or how much damage is applied (after SR, DR, etc) that determines whether the damage threshold is taken.
This came up in our game last night. To break a Damage Threshold, is it the damage the attack rolls or how much damage is applied (after SR, DR, etc) that determines whether the damage threshold is taken.
This came up in our game last night. To break a Damage Threshold, is it the damage the attack rolls or how much damage is applied (after SR, DR, etc) that determines whether the damage threshold is taken.
How much damage taken to hitpoints (after SR, DR, and anything else that reduces the damage taken) is compared against the Damage Threshold.
How much damage taken to hitpoints (after SR, DR, and anything else that reduces the damage taken) is compared against the Damage Threshold.
We don't know for certain whether or not he did complete it? Was his Destiny to train Anakin to become a Jedi Knight, or was it to train Anakin so that Anakin could bring balance to the Force? The latter ties in nicely with the fact that he became a Force Spirit (in the rules, a consequence of being a force-user who dies while pursuing his Destiny)...
To be honest, I don't think completed Destinies are accounted for in any of the entries in the Eras of Play chapter...
Are you so sure it was Anakin that he was destined to educate? I remember another young Jedi-to-be that he trained in some movie like thirty years ago or something.
On the other hand, it could be that he failed to do either...not all destinies are fulfilled
Also, I don't see where the character build's destiny type is (while it seems most of the characters have a destiny, because they have destiny points...).
And, as a wonderful afterthought on destinies, let us all remember the great Jedi Andor Vex (and remind players not to swagger too much on their own grand destines).
Destruction? Rescue? How about Reactor Fuel? What kind of bonuses would that get 'im? Heh.
Are you so sure it was Anakin that he was destined to educate? I remember another young Jedi-to-be that he trained in some movie like thirty years ago or something. ;)On the other hand, it could be that he failed to do either...not all destinies are
I got bored of having to flick through the compiled Errata to find things... So I went through and put in in order and incorperated the errata already released by WotC
I got bored of having to flick through the compiled Errata to find things... So I went through and put in in order and incorperated the errata already released by WotCIt can be found here
ok i just thought of this and i don't think its been adressed yet... how does the ageing process work? i know about the score changes but one thing that i have never understode since the ocrb is when you progress from child to young adult or young adult to adult. i know about the score increases and all but my question comes in at the con if it in creases enought to in crease your con modifier is it retrospective? does it go back to the first lvl or does it go just for lvls there after??
ok i just thought of this and i don't think its been adressed yet... how does the ageing process work? i know about the score changes but one thing that i have never understode since the ocrb is when you progress from child to young adult or young ad
ok i just thought of this and i don't think its been adressed yet... how does the ageing process work? i know about the score changes but one thing that i have never understode since the ocrb is when you progress from child to young adult or young adult to adult. i know about the score increases and all but my question comes in at the con if it in creases enought to in crease your con modifier is it retrospective? does it go back to the first lvl or does it go just for lvls there after??
To my knowledge, in all editions of the game, Constitution increases (or decreases) are retroactive.
To my knowledge, in all editions of the game, Constitution increases (or decreases) are retroactive.
Not sure if this has been posted already, but I was thinking about how Improved Armored Defense and Second Skin work. Does the Armor bonus of Second Skin apply before or after the halving of Improved Armored Defense. If before, Second Skin is half worthless if the armor you like using has an even bonus. I think Second Skin should apply after Improved Armored Defense so it always contributes its full worth.
Not sure if this has been posted already, but I was thinking about how Improved Armored Defense and Second Skin work. Does the Armor bonus of Second Skin apply before or after the halving of Improved Armored Defense. If before, Second Skin is half wo
Not sure if this has been posted already, but I was thinking about how Improved Armored Defense and Second Skin work. Does the Armor bonus of Second Skin apply before or after the halving of Improved Armored Defense. If before, Second Skin is half worthless if the armor you like using has an even bonus. I think Second Skin should apply after Improved Armored Defense so it always contributes its full worth.
The game designers have commented on this particular issue already (some time ago in a thread). ANY armor bonus FROM ANY SOURCE is taken into account BEFORE the halving by Improved Armored Defense.
If you want, I can try to find the thread for you.
The game designers have commented on this particular issue already (some time ago in a thread). ANY armor bonus FROM ANY SOURCE is taken into account BEFORE the halving by Improved Armored Defense.If you want, I can try to find the thread for you.
The game designers have commented on this particular issue already (some time ago in a thread). ANY armor bonus FROM ANY SOURCE is taken into account BEFORE the halving by Improved Armored Defense.
If you want, I can try to find the thread for you.
The game designers have commented on this particular issue already (some time ago in a thread). ANY armor bonus FROM ANY SOURCE is taken into account BEFORE the halving by Improved Armored Defense.
If you want, I can try to find the thread for you.
I'd like to see this post, because that ruling makes the Second Skin talent craptastic. You only benefit from half of the talent, unless you happen to be wearing armor with an odd-numbered bonus to RD.
I'd like to see this post, because that ruling makes the Second Skin talent craptastic. You only benefit from half of the talent, unless you happen to be wearing armor with an odd-numbered bonus to RD.
I'd like to see this post, because that ruling makes the Second Skin talent craptastic. You only benefit from half of the talent, unless you happen to be wearing armor with an odd-numbered bonus to RD.
Wow. Finding it was much harder than I thought and took up the better part of an hour. [SOURCE]
Wow. Finding it was much harder than I thought and took up the better part of an hour. [SOURCE]
Wow. Finding it was much harder than I thought and took up the better part of an hour. [SOURCE]
Well, that's another house rule to add in. As of that ruling, Second Skin is now a pretty crappy talent. What is the logic behind that ruling? Is the talent that much of a game breaker or something? You'd be better off spending a feat on Improved Defenses and picking a more useful talent.
Well, that's another house rule to add in. As of that ruling, Second Skin is now a pretty crappy talent. What is the logic behind that ruling? Is the talent that much of a game breaker or something? You'd be better off spending a feat on Improved Def
Well, that's another house rule to add in. As of that ruling, Second Skin is now a pretty crappy talent. What is the logic behind that ruling? Is the talent that much of a game breaker or something? You'd be better off spending a feat on Improved Defenses and picking a more useful talent.
If you'll notice, many armor suits provide an odd bonus to REF defense, which this talent therefore benefits.
So, really, it behooves one to consider the type of armor they want to wear, that is all.
If you'll notice, many armor suits provide an odd bonus to REF defense, which this talent therefore benefits.So, really, it behooves one to consider the type of armor they want to wear, that is all.
If you'll notice, many armor suits provide an odd bonus to REF defense, which this talent therefore benefits.
So, really, it behooves one to consider the type of armor they want to wear, that is all.
Yeah okay, but what if you don't want to wear armor with an odd bonus? The talent is only half-worthwhile for those who wear armor with an even bonus. Is it really going to break the game so badly to allow Second Skin to provide a flat bonus after calculating normal armor bonuses? I fail to understand the logic of having a talent that is only half useful half of the time.
Yeah okay, but what if you don't want to wear armor with an odd bonus? The talent is only half-worthwhile for those who wear armor with an even bonus. Is it really going to break the game so badly to allow Second Skin to provide a flat bonus after ca
Yeah okay, but what if you don't want to wear armor with an odd bonus? The talent is only half-worthwhile for those who wear armor with an even bonus. Is it really going to break the game so badly to allow Second Skin to provide a flat bonus after calculating normal armor bonuses? I fail to understand the logic of having a talent that is only half useful half of the time.
Just to play devil's advocate here, but you could take that same suit of armor (for example, battle armor), use the Tech Spec mod to increase the Reflex Defense bonus by +1 (making it a +9 armor bonus), then tack Second Skin on top of it, getting a +5 armor bonus to Reflex Defense and +3 to Fort Defense while wearing your modded' battle armor.
I'll be honest in that I'm not the biggest fan of that particular ruling, but since to date there's only been one PC in any of the SWSE games that I play in that's even bothered to focus on armor utility, hasn't been much of an issue one way or the other.
Just to play devil's advocate here, but you could take that same suit of armor (for example, battle armor), use the Tech Spec mod to increase the Reflex Defense bonus by +1 (making it a +9 armor bonus), then tack Second Skin on top of it, getting a +
Yeah okay, but what if you don't want to wear armor with an odd bonus? The talent is only half-worthwhile for those who wear armor with an even bonus. Is it really going to break the game so badly to allow Second Skin to provide a flat bonus after calculating normal armor bonuses? I fail to understand the logic of having a talent that is only half useful half of the time.
There's always the tech specialist modification "Protective Armor," which also gives a +1 to the Ref defense provided by armor.
There's always the tech specialist modification "Protective Armor," which also gives a +1 to the Ref defense provided by armor.
Yeah okay, but what if you don't want to wear armor with an odd bonus? The talent is only half-worthwhile for those who wear armor with an even bonus. Is it really going to break the game so badly to allow Second Skin to provide a flat bonus after calculating normal armor bonuses? I fail to understand the logic of having a talent that is only half useful half of the time.
I always figured that the +1 dex bonus was the main point of the talent; it allows you to wear a heavier armor -- worth as much as +2 Ref (+1 if level > armor), or allowing you to increase your Dex beyond the normal limits of your armor and still fully benefit from it. This strikes me as a bit like complaining that Juggernaut doesn't help someone who wears light armor. Specialized doesn't mean useless.
I always figured that the +1 dex bonus was the main point of the talent; it allows you to wear a heavier armor -- worth as much as +2 Ref (+1 if level > armor), or allowing you to increase your Dex beyond the normal limits of your armor and still ful
I always figured that the +1 dex bonus was the main point of the talent; it allows you to wear a heavier armor -- worth as much as +2 Ref (+1 if level > armor), or allowing you to increase your Dex beyond the normal limits of your armor and still fully benefit from it. This strikes me as a bit like complaining that Juggernaut doesn't help someone who wears light armor. Specialized doesn't mean useless.
You are thinking of Armor Mastery, which provides an additional +1 to the maximum Dex bonus, not Second Skin. As of this new ruling, Second Skin only benefits your Reflex Defense if you are wearing armor with an odd-numbered bonus to RD. My understanding of Second Skin was that the talent was there to represent a character making the most of whatever armor he is wearing. Now, you can only make the most of only a handful of armors. Sure you get a +1 bonus to Fort Defense, but the +1 to RD gets lost with about half the armors available.
Juggernaut on the other hand, is specifically designed for the heavier armor types. Specialized is one thing - a talent that only fully works for armors with an odd bonus to RD strikes me as wrong somehow.
You are thinking of Armor Mastery, which provides an additional +1 to the maximum Dex bonus, not Second Skin. As of this new ruling, Second Skin only benefits your Reflex Defense if you are wearing armor with an odd-numbered bonus to RD. My understan
I think it works well with that ruling. Second skin is like skirmisher to me, a tertiary talent. You take skirmisher after you have weapon focus, you take second skin after you have improved defenses. Its a way to super specialize yourself. Although, I see nothing wrong with having it apply after the fact if thats what you want. Everyone's game is different =)
I think it works well with that ruling. Second skin is like skirmisher to me, a tertiary talent. You take skirmisher after you have weapon focus, you take second skin after you have improved defenses. Its a way to super specialize yourself. Although,
You are thinking of Armor Mastery, which provides an additional +1 to the maximum Dex bonus, not Second Skin. As of this new ruling, Second Skin only benefits your Reflex Defense if you are wearing armor with an odd-numbered bonus to RD. My understanding of Second Skin was that the talent was there to represent a character making the most of whatever armor he is wearing. Now, you can only make the most of only a handful of armors. Sure you get a +1 bonus to Fort Defense, but the +1 to RD gets lost with about half the armors available.
Juggernaut on the other hand, is specifically designed for the heavier armor types. Specialized is one thing - a talent that only fully works for armors with an odd bonus to RD strikes me as wrong somehow.
Yeah, I realized that I was thinking of Mastery about 2:00 at work today. (Yes, my mind does stuff like that.) I agree, that's bogus. +1 Fort is nice and all, but... yeah.
Yeah, I realized that I was thinking of Mastery about 2:00 at work today. (Yes, my mind does stuff like that.) I agree, that's bogus. +1 Fort is nice and all, but... yeah.
I think it works well with that ruling. Second skin is like skirmisher to me, a tertiary talent.
I don't know about a calling Skirmisher a "tertiary" talent. There's a Scoundrel in my current game group that makes awesome use of that talent in combination with Rapid Shot, Running Attack, and a blaster modified for increased accuracy. Nearly impossible to pin down, and lord help the baddies if there's cover aplenty for her to take advantage of.
I don't know about a calling Skirmisher a "tertiary" talent. There's a Scoundrel in my current game group that makes awesome use of that talent in combination with Rapid Shot, Running Attack, and a blaster modified for increased accuracy. Nearly im
I don't know about a calling Skirmisher a "tertiary" talent. There's a Scoundrel in my current game group that makes awesome use of that talent in combination with Rapid Shot, Running Attack, and a blaster modified for increased accuracy. Nearly impossible to pin down, and lord help the baddies if there's cover aplenty for her to take advantage of.
Oh I have no doubt about its effectiveness, my fiance plays that type of character in my game. Perhaps tertiary was too harsh. Secondary talent then? Its not devastating attack, but its definitely good in the right circumstances.
Oh I have no doubt about its effectiveness, my fiance plays that type of character in my game. Perhaps tertiary was too harsh. Secondary talent then? Its not devastating attack, but its definitely good in the right circumstances.
Actually, Second Skin isn't half bad, it's biggest bonus is that it works with any armor your proficient in. Most of the armors in SWSE give odd bonuses, at least the ones you can get a hold of without resorting to blackmarket inflation. Three of the four armors with even RD's are military licensed requirement, which is 20% more for the license or x4 for black market purchases. That, and you'll end up waiting 5 days for the armor. All in all, the even RD armors are not very cost effective ('cept for maybe the medium battle armor).
I've got a character in a DoD campaign I'm running whose more than happy with Second Skin and is running around in an armored spacesuit that the TechSpec has modified for more dex to defense. The big thing to remember is that Second Skin only has Armored Defense as a requirement (just like Improved Armored Defense, Juggernaut, etc.) and it's benefit is tailored towards those that aren't taking ImpArmDef till they have other talents taken care of (Weapon Spec, Devestating Atk, etc.). It's still usefull once you take ImpArmDef it just depends on the armor (or modifications to that armor) as to how useful it is. Of course, if a Jensaarai character happens to have Attune Armor too, the more the merrier.
Actually, Second Skin isn't half bad, it's biggest bonus is that it works with any armor your proficient in. Most of the armors in SWSE give odd bonuses, at least the ones you can get a hold of without resorting to blackmarket inflation. Three of t
I think I found something that needs minor errata. I did not see it on the list, but might have missed it.
On page 51 of the Core Rule Book under Cooperation they talk about the skill Knowledge (Business). Last I checked there is no such skill and from skill descriptions it should be Knowledge (Bureaucracy.)
Thanks, Duncan
I think I found something that needs minor errata. I did not see it on the list, but might have missed it.On page 51 of the Core Rule Book under Cooperation they talk about the skill Knowledge (Business). Last I checked there is no such skill and f
If someone could be so helpfull as to explain a bit more the surge ability with destiny. I don't understand what do i need to add up when use those. Jump roll + (my speed in squares + squares i rolled in use the force check + 4 squares from destiny) and multiplay it by 4 for sprinting? Thats pritty high...
If someone could be so helpfull as to explain a bit more the surge ability with destiny.I don't understand what do i need to add up when use those.Jump roll + (my speed in squares + squares i rolled in use the force check + 4 squares from destiny) an
If someone could be so helpfull as to explain a bit more the surge ability with destiny. I don't understand what do i need to add up when use those. Jump roll + (my speed in squares + squares i rolled in use the force check + 4 squares from destiny) and multiplay it by 4 for sprinting? Thats pritty high...
thats the point it is supposed to be high to present the image we all have in mind from Luke jumping a tree branch that was high above the ground or anikins jump over pits of lava on mustifar. that was something that wasn't put into the rules to represent the way we say it in the movies until saga edition.
thats the point it is supposed to be high to present the image we all have in mind from Luke jumping a tree branch that was high above the ground or anikins jump over pits of lava on mustifar. that was something that wasn't put into the rules to rep
in starships of the galaxy, The Z-95 lists it's weapons as triple light cannon, and medium concussion missles while the stats are for a light cannon and light concussion missles.
in starships of the galaxy, The Z-95 lists it's weapons as triple light cannon, and medium concussion missles while the stats are for a light cannon and light concussion missles.
in starships of the galaxy, The Z-95 lists it's weapons as triple light cannon, and medium concussion missles while the stats are for a light cannon and light concussion missles.
That's not an error. The lower damage is supposed to represent older, inferior technologies in action. They are actually medium weapons, not light ones.
If you wanted, you could switch them out for "modern" medium weapons of the same type with very little cost and get better damage values as a result.
That's not an error. The lower damage is supposed to represent older, inferior technologies in action. They are actually medium weapons, not light ones.If you wanted, you could switch them out for "modern" medium weapons of the same type with very li
I am looking for volunteers to sort the info already found in the Official Errata Thread and organize it by page number. It's a project I've been meaning to do myself, but real life keeps getting in the way, so now I've made up my mind to delegate the task to others. Good formatting, proper BBC coding, and accurate grammar/spelling are a must.
Any who volunteer and offer quality service will be credited in the thread as an editor (even if your work isn't included in the end result) and may well be added to my buddy list.
Many of you talk about how you would edit the books for free to ensure they are error free. Now's your chance to show your stuff.
If you think you can do a good job and want to help make this a better online community, please post your response in this thread and PM me your work when you are done.
[SIZE="4"]OPEN CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS[/SIZE]I am looking for volunteers to sort the info already found in the Official Errata Thread and organize it by page number. It's a project I've been meaning to do myself, but real life keeps getting in the way, s
Has anyone ever noticed that the Thug on pge 284 of the SECR has the Cleave feat, but not the prerequisite Power Attack? I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the errata.
Has anyone ever noticed that the Thug on pge 284 of the SECR has the Cleave feat, but not the prerequisite Power Attack? I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the errata.
Under the Junker template, it talks about a TYE-wing being the marriage of a TIE fighter ball cockpit and the engine nacelles of a Y-wing. [This is correct.] Then, in the example, it talks about a TYE-wing created by adding the Junker template to a TIE Fighter, representing a Y-wing with TIE fighter wings instead of engine nacelles. [This is wrong.] The stats, however, match a TYE-wing (and are right).
So, the errata just needs to fix the parenthetical reference to "and representing a TIE fighter with Y-wing engine nacelles instead of wings."
* - Okay, extremely nitpicky errata. I only noticed it because I was going to stat out a Y-TIE myself (by adding the Junker template to a Y-wing) and noticed the misprint. :D
Somewhat* nitpicky errata for SotG:Under the Junker template, it talks about a TYE-wing being the marriage of a TIE fighter ball cockpit and the engine nacelles of a Y-wing. [This is correct.] Then, in the example, it talks about a TYE-wing created
What happened to the "Sticky" on this or at least some other errata thread? That does make it a little harder to find for those who don't bookmark it or who haven't seen it to begin with.
What happened to the "Sticky" on this or at least some other errata thread? That does make it a little harder to find for those who don't bookmark it or who haven't seen it to begin with.
It was taken off so there would be room for the VCL threads.
Should I become VCL, one of the first things I will do is get both this errata thread and the FAQ thread stickied again.
It was taken off so there would be room for the VCL threads.Should I become VCL, one of the first things I will do is get both this errata thread and the FAQ thread stickied again.
There's an officer talent, I think it's called deployment tactics, after the main text it says something about the bonus from a noble talent (if forget which one) and the soldier talent battle analysis increasing to +2, but battle analysis doesn't grant a bonus, it let's you know who's below half hitpoints, cover fire has battle analysis as a prerequisite and grants a +1 bonus to reflex defense to allies within I think 6 squares if you fire a pistol or rifle that round, I think that is what the officer talent should be referring to instead.
There's an officer talent, I think it's called deployment tactics, after the main text it says something about the bonus from a noble talent (if forget which one) and the soldier talent battle analysis increasing to +2, but battle analysis doesn't g
There's an officer talent, I think it's called deployment tactics, after the main text it says something about the bonus from a noble talent (if forget which one) and the soldier talent battle analysis increasing to +2, but battle analysis doesn't grant a bonus, it let's you know who's below half hitpoints, cover fire has battle analysis as a prerequisite and grants a +1 bonus to reflex defense to allies within I think 6 squares if you fire a pistol or rifle that round, I think that is what the officer talent should be referring to instead.
I think you are misinterpreting or misreading the Deployment Tactics talent description. If you have either (or both of) the Battle Analysis or Born Leader talents, the bonus you confer using Deployment Tactics moves up to +2. It doesn't grant bonuses to any other talents you have.
I think you are misinterpreting or misreading the Deployment Tactics talent description. If you have either (or both of) the Battle Analysis or Born Leader talents, the bonus you confer using Deployment Tactics moves up to +2. It doesn't grant bonuse
I think you are misinterpreting or misreading the Deployment Tactics talent description. If you have either (or both of) the Battle Analysis or Born Leader talents, the bonus you confer using Deployment Tactics moves up to +2. It doesn't grant bonuses to any other talents you have.
I very well could have misread that, I'll have to check it later.
I very well could have misread that, I'll have to check it later.
ok ... Im looking for something official or as close to it as possible ... maybe from WizO The Hutt or something
Can the Following , Talents, Feat / Skills Negate a Critical Strike against their Appropriate Attacks
Pilot / Vehicular Combat Block Deflect and any others I did not mention
I hate to be pushy about this ... but I would Love to have something to Show my DM in Hard evidance about this (yes the Crits are getting messy)
ok ... Im looking for something official or as close to it as possible ... maybe from WizO The Hutt or somethingCan the Following , Talents, Feat / Skills Negate a Critical Strike against their Appropriate AttacksPilot / Vehicular CombatBlockDeflecta
ok ... Im looking for something official or as close to it as possible ... maybe from WizO The Hutt or something
Can the Following , Talents, Feat / Skills Negate a Critical Strike against their Appropriate Attacks
Pilot / Vehicular Combat Block Deflect and any others I did not mention
I hate to be pushy about this ... but I would Love to have something to Show my DM in Hard evidance about this (yes the Crits are getting messy)
GMSarli and Rodney already stated that Block/Deflect could negate Criticals provided they get a roll high enogh to do so, I think that's in the Errata, or in the first page of this thread.
I'm not shure if Pilot/Vehicular Combat could negate criticals too, I think they don't negate, but as I said before, I'm not shure of this one.
Also you could spend a Destiny Point to negate a critical and transform it into a normal hit.
GMSarli and Rodney already stated that Block/Deflect could negate Criticals provided they get a roll high enogh to do so, I think that's in the Errata, or in the first page of this thread.I'm not shure if Pilot/Vehicular Combat could negate criticals
GMSarli and Rodney already stated that Block/Deflect could negate Criticals provided they get a roll high enogh to do so, I think that's in the Errata, or in the first page of this thread.
I'm not shure if Pilot/Vehicular Combat could negate criticals too, I think they don't negate, but as I said before, I'm not shure of this one.
Also you could spend a Destiny Point to negate a critical and transform it into a normal hit.
I have seen this in the 1st page of the thread ... but if I plan to take this to my DM I need something hardcore ....I Look back at the 1st p[age in the thread ... and the only thing I see is
Actual changes or additions to the rules are highlighted in red.
and Block & Deflect (Clarification) Block and Deflect will stop an attack that rolled a natural 20 provided the defender can make the Use the Force check.
Listed in Black
I have Spent the last Several Hours Looking for Where WizO_the_Hutt has Said this .... I Found a Single Quote ... but was unable to locate the Thread of Origin .... I know that this is how it Should be interpreted .... but our DM Doesnt .... and I am a Firm Believer in "Make your point at onset then do Research till you Find the Hard evidence" and unfortunatly .... what appears at the Start of this Thread is not going to be considered Hard evidence in his Mind (due to his Personal Views on Forum posters).... this is Why I am Really Working to Locate a Post from WizO_the_Hutt , GMSarli, Or Rodney on this Subject... Morsoe Hutt because the Credentials on who he is is Widely posted
and the vehicular Combat is Worded Virtualy the same
I have seen this in the 1st page of the thread ... but if I plan to take this to my DM I need something hardcore ....I Look back at the 1st p[age in the thread ... and the only thing I see is Actual changes or additions to the rules are highlighted i
I have no proof or anything, but yes, Vehicular Dodge will block a crit. It doesn't care how you resolve the attack; it just says you have to beat the attack roll. If it helps, think of the attack as setting the DC for an otherwise unrelated Pilot check.
I have no proof or anything, but yes, Vehicular Dodge will block a crit. It doesn't care how you resolve the attack; it just says you have to beat the attack roll. If it helps, think of the attack as setting the DC for an otherwise unrelated Pilot
There's a difference between an actual change or addendum, and a clarification.
If something actually needs to be changed, or have something added to it, it fundamentally affects how the rule interacts with the game world.
A clarification is simply pointing out that, yes, this was intended to work like this. In the case of Block/Deflect, there was no need for a change or addendum to the rule. . . it negates attacks. But there was need to CLARIFY that yes, it will negate ANY attack, no matter what the roll is (even a natural 20.)
Clarifications are just as much an official part of the errata as rules changes and additions, the actual changes and additions are simply listed in a different color to provide easy differentiation between an errata that actually changes how the rule works, versus a clarification of how it should work.
There's a difference between an actual change or addendum, and a clarification.If something actually needs to be changed, or have something added to it, it fundamentally affects how the rule interacts with the game world.A clarification is simply poi
Playing a Costum Droid (pg 186): You start with 2 arm appendages: Whitch ones? (they al have different costs) Buying Locomotion systems: Jump servos and magnetic feet are under the Locomotion chapter, but the cost formule and availibility is listed under the appendage in the table of pg 194. Further the cost calculation uses the appendage cost and not the locomotion cost for these locomotion upgrades, that seem a little bit odd.
New question:Playing a Costum Droid (pg 186): You start with 2 arm appendages: Whitch ones? (they al have different costs)Buying Locomotion systems: Jump servos and magnetic feet are under the Locomotion chapter, but the cost formule and availibilit
Basically, you're saying that since the rules say to apply only half damage to living creatures under the description of ion weapons, then again under the Ion Damage section in the Combat chapter, you apply the rule twice? Frag grenades say that when you miss a target's reflex, the target takes half damage, and the rules for area attacks say that any targets you miss take half damage. Doesn't mean you only apply 1/4 in that case.
Additionally, I think we're reading the "and suffers no other ill effects" line a bit too literally. You run enough charged particles through a guy, he's gonna feel it...granted, you'd have to be running 30-40 points worth of charged particles (before halving) for it to slow him down. I'm thinking if you can hit a living creature for enough damage after halving (or quartering) ion damage, it should move down the CT 1 step, as normal for taking damage in excess of its threshold.
About Ion Damage.Cut/pasted from another thread...Basically, you're saying that since the rules say to apply only half damage to living creatures under the description of ion weapons, then again under the Ion Damage section in the Combat chapter, you
Basically, you're saying that since the rules say to apply only half damage to living creatures under the description of ion weapons, then again under the Ion Damage section in the Combat chapter, you apply the rule twice? Frag grenades say that when you miss a target's reflex, the target takes half damage, and the rules for area attacks say that any targets you miss take half damage. Doesn't mean you only apply 1/4 in that case.
Sort of. Ion damage is halved against inappropriate targets, so that 40 damage is reduced to 20. Then you apply SR, DR, and any other damage reductions. Then what's left, which would normally be applied against your hp, is halved again just as Stun would be.
Additionally, I think we're reading the "and suffers no other ill effects" line a bit too literally. You run enough charged particles through a guy, he's gonna feel it...granted, you'd have to be running 30-40 points worth of charged particles (before halving) for it to slow him down. I'm thinking if you can hit a living creature for enough damage after halving (or quartering) ion damage, it should move down the CT 1 step, as normal for taking damage in excess of its threshold.
The rules are silent on that, though I tend to agree. My house rule is that you take a condition hit as normal if the ion damage that gets past SR/DR is greater than threshold (then halve that before applying it to hp).
Sort of. Ion damage is halved against inappropriate targets, so that 40 damage is reduced to 20. Then you apply SR, DR, and any other damage reductions. Then what's left, which would normally be applied against your hp, is halved again just as Stu
I may be wrong on this but I think that the KOTOR SB has an errata on page 19 under the Snivvian Species Traits. It claims that Snivvians are small sized creatures, but Table 1-2 on pg10 reflects them as average height of 1.4m. This is in direct contradiction to the SECR Table 16-2 on pg274 that states that a small creature is 0.7 to 1.2m and a medium creature is 1.3 to 2.4m... the Snuvvian stats are also contradicted by the Nosaurian stats in the TFU pg18 (I am sure that there are MANY more, but these stand out).
Would that be considered errata or an exception for the Snivvians for some reason?
Also, slightly off topic, can species stats from UAA from D20 be considered a viable source for species stats not yet introduced? Does someone know if Noghri have been statted for SAGA yet? if so, which sourcebook?
**EDIT** Found Noghri in the TFU SourceBook. Not pleased with their stats, however. but it seems official. I would DEFINATELY call them Medium creatures as they stand roughly 1.4-1.7m tall and NOT primitive as their commandos have specializes vehicles for space travel and have been known to use energy weapons for assassinations before. Thanks!
I may be wrong on this but I think that the KOTOR SB has an errata on page 19 under the Snivvian Species Traits. It claims that Snivvians are small sized creatures, but Table 1-2 on pg10 reflects them as average height of 1.4m. This is in direct con
Is this being updated? It'd be nice to see a date for every update on the 1st page so I know whether or not something new was added.
Or better yet, change the font color of the new additions to a different color each time.
Is this being updated? It'd be nice to see a date for every update on the 1st page so I know whether or not something new was added.Or better yet, change the font color of the new additions to a different color each time.
This is sort of nitpicky, but shouldn't the entry for all Felucians - and also Kazdan Peratus - have a listed Climb speed?
Descriptive text says Kazdan prowls his makeshift Jedi temple "on the floor, walls and ceilings, thanks to his spider limbs" (Kazdan Paratus stats, TFU p. 218).
Also, the databank entry for Felucians in the TFU game (and what you see them actually doing in cinematics) has Felucians being able to "crawl on any surface." On the flip side, I haven't seen anything showing them to be amphibious (but I also haven't finished the game yet!).
I realize Felucians are kind of already bad-ass enough, but they *are* primitive and can't (apparently) speak basic.
Should I maybe just not worry about it?
BTW:Hear, hear to Razz's comment about FAQ/Errata updates being dated on the first page!
This is sort of nitpicky, but shouldn't the entry for all Felucians - and also Kazdan Peratus - have a listed Climb speed? Descriptive text says Kazdan prowls his makeshift Jedi temple "on the floor, walls and ceilings, thanks to his spider limbs" (
**EDIT** Found Noghri in the TFU SourceBook. Not pleased with their stats, however. but it seems official. I would DEFINATELY call them Medium creatures as they stand roughly 1.4-1.7m tall and NOT primitive as their commandos have specializes vehicles for space travel and have been known to use energy weapons for assassinations before. Thanks!
Ill put it in YOUR language. They ARE primitive. If commandos can use energy weapons doesnt mean that ALL Noghri can.
And I have a question about move object. Damage come from UF check, and not the size.. right? And you can attack more than one person.. right? Than is there any need for Force lightning that can be deflected? I mean is there any need for any other ofensive force power other than move object?
Ill put it in YOUR language. They ARE primitive. If commandos can use energy weapons doesnt mean that ALL Noghri can.And I have a question about move object. Damage come from UF check, and not the size.. right? And you can attack more than one person
Ill put it in YOUR language. They ARE primitive. If commandos can use energy weapons doesnt mean that ALL Noghri can.
And I have a question about move object. Damage come from UF check, and not the size.. right? And you can attack more than one person.. right? Than is there any need for Force lightning that can be deflected? I mean is there any need for any other ofensive force power other than move object?
Yes, damage comes from the Use The Force check, not size of the object moved.
No, you cannot attack multiple targets with Move Object--at least there is nothing official whatsoever anywhere in the rules to support that you can.
Yes, damage comes from the Use The Force check, not size of the object moved.No, you cannot attack multiple targets with Move Object--at least there is nothing official whatsoever anywhere in the rules to support that you can.
Yes, damage comes from the Use The Force check, not size of the object moved.
No, you cannot attack multiple targets with Move Object--at least there is nothing official whatsoever anywhere in the rules to support that you can.
Yes you can:
p98]You can hurl target at(or drop onto) another target..... blah blah blah
And here is the catch. Try to convince a player that when he drops a spaceship that is 4x4 onto a target that is standing next to another 4 people, that all 5 cant be targeted.
edit: This leads to abuse, cause at 4th level you can have 3[wis]+2+5+5=15+d20 (average roll of 10 gives you 25, that is 6d6 almost undogeable attack. And with Foce Focus you can do this every second turn (if you have only 1 use of Move object)
edit: and look at the lightning: 8d6, can be deflected, gives dark side and works on 1 target.
To sum things up, id say that Move Object is broken. (and yes, all you munchkins, go and use this against y wrote:
You can hurl target at(or drop onto) another target..... blah blah blah[/quote] And here is the catch. Try to convince a player that when he drops a spaceship that is 4x4 onto a target that is standing next to another 4 people, that all 5 cant be targeted.
edit: This leads to abuse, cause at 4th level you can have 3[wis]+2+5+5=15+d20 (average roll of 10 gives you 25, that is 6d6 almost undogeable attack. And with Foce Focus you can do this every second turn (if you have only 1 use of Move object)
edit: and look at the lightning: 8d6, can be deflected, gives dark side and works on 1 target.
To sum things up, id say that Move Object is broken. (and yes, all you munchkins, go and use this against your GM)
Yes you can:And here is the catch. Try to convince a player that when he drops a spaceship that is 4x4 onto a target that is standing next to another 4 people, that all 5 cant be targeted.edit: This leads to abuse, cause at 4th level you can have 3[w
Well it always was, look at the movies and the video games, particularly Force Unleashed. All you do in that game to get out of sticky situations is grab something and fling it.
Well it always was, look at the movies and the video games, particularly Force Unleashed. All you do in that game to get out of sticky situations is grab something and fling it.
Actually I just read the errata where it says if you use Move Object to deal damage, you cease maintaining it.
So, no, you can't hit multiple foes with it. Of course, I would rule you can hit as many targets as it would take up a fighting space for larger objects.
Actually I just read the errata where it says if you use Move Object to deal damage, you cease maintaining it. So, no, you can't hit multiple foes with it. Of course, I would rule you can hit as many targets as it would take up a fighting space for l
What I do not understand about Move Object is the errata says the target has to be within 12 squares AND line of sight.
So how do they grab objects much further than that? Especially when Galen/Starkiller in Force Unleashed grabs a starship from the distance he was at?
What I do not understand about Move Object is the errata says the target has to be within 12 squares AND line of sight.So how do they grab objects much further than that? Especially when Galen/Starkiller in Force Unleashed grabs a starship from the d
And here is the catch. Try to convince a player that when he drops a spaceship that is 4x4 onto a target that is standing next to another 4 people, that all 5 cant be targeted.
edit: This leads to abuse, cause at 4th level you can have 3[wis]+2+5+5=15+d20 (average roll of 10 gives you 25, that is 6d6 almost undogeable attack. And with Foce Focus you can do this every second turn (if you have only 1 use of Move object)
edit: and look at the lightning: 8d6, can be deflected, gives dark side and works on 1 target.
To sum things up, id say that Move Object is broken. (and yes, all you munchkins, go and use this against your GM)
If you hurl anything at anyone using Move Object you can only hit one target (picture your starfighter as spiraling through the air and clipping them with a wing as it flies overhead and past them) short of using outside abilities such as the Multitarget Force secret.
However, if you lift an object and then drop it on them with Move Object, then you could crush multiple targets, but then you are using the Falling Objects rules, not those of the Move Object force power.
If you hurl anything at anyone using Move Object you can only hit one target (picture your starfighter as spiraling through the air and clipping them with a wing as it flies overhead and past them) short of using outside abilities such as the Multita
In SE - Scum & Villainy, These referrances to the "Autonomous Weapons" Upgrade need to be removed as the actual Weapon Upgrade "Autonomous Weapons" never made it in the final edition of the rulebook.
Autonomous Weapons are referred to on pages: 48 - Under the Weapon Mount upgrade entry. 48 - In the yellow section headed "Tech Specialist" where it explains that Droid Traits apply to Autonomous Weapons.
I am pretty sure i saw another referrance somewhere, but cannot remember where at this point in time.
In SE - Scum & Villainy,These referrances to the "Autonomous Weapons" Upgrade need to be removed as the actual Weapon Upgrade "Autonomous Weapons" never made it in the final edition of the rulebook.Autonomous Weapons are referred to on pages:48 - Und
Just read all 28 pages, can't remember what i came here for now...
Well, I hope you are better informed as a result.
Jumk-Dunper wrote:
In SE - Scum & Villainy, These referrances to the "Autonomous Weapons" Upgrade need to be removed as the actual Weapon Upgrade "Autonomous Weapons" never made it in the final edition of the rulebook.
Autonomous Weapons are referred to on pages: 48 - Under the Weapon Mount upgrade entry. 48 - In the yellow section headed "Tech Specialist" where it explains that Droid Traits apply to Autonomous Weapons.
I am pretty sure i saw another referrance somewhere, but cannot remember where at this point in time.
The autonomous upgrade was removed during the editing process due to balance issues. Ignore all referances to it.
Well, I hope you are better informed as a result. :)The autonomous upgrade was removed during the editing process due to balance issues. Ignore all referances to it.
S&V, page 78. Remove the following from the first paragraph as it was what is referenced is NOT in the book.
(represented by the hero's organization score; see "Building a Criminal Empire," above)
Personally I think that should be a Web Enhancement, put out soon. It's too useful to not have out for use by GM's.
S&V, page 78. Remove the following from the first paragraph as it was what is referenced is NOT in the book.(represented by the hero's organization score; see "Building a Criminal Empire," above)Personally I think that should be a Web Enhancement, pu
Ok, Master Privateer PRC, pg 51 TFUCG, pg 32 S&V. They are basically the same, except in regard to talents.
S&V Requirements-any two talents from misfortune talent tree TFU Requirements-any two talents from misfortune, smuggling or space hound talent tree
S&V talent trees-piracy, infamy, or spacer TFU talent trees-privateer or infamy
In every single other regard, they are identical. Now....if they just made erratta for S&V that said the privateer can also take the privateer talent tree, and smuggling or spacehound can be used for the requirements, then I think that would solve everything. Otherwise....what do I do here? Do I treat them as two separate (but very similar) classes? HELP!
Ok, Master Privateer PRC, pg 51 TFUCG, pg 32 S&V. They are basically the same, except in regard to talents. S&V Requirements-any two talents from misfortune talent treeTFU Requirements-any two talents from misfortune, smuggling or space hound talen
The S&V version says it's an update of the tFU version. Use the S&V version's requirements, but combine voth versions' talent trees.
So the updated version would have "any two talents from the misfortune talent tree" as requirements and would grant access to the Privateer, Infamy, Piracy and Spacer talent trees.
Does that help?
The S&V version says it's an update of the tFU version. Use the S&V version's requirements, but combine voth versions' talent trees.So the updated version would have "any two talents from the misfortune talent tree" as requirements and would grant ac
Wow, didnt bother to read the flavor paragraph, thanks. Still...would it have killed them to list privateer in the available talent trees? Im sure im not the first guy confused by it. Would have been nice to keep the smuggling tree as a requirement too, but oh well! Thanks muchfor the help!
Wow, didnt bother to read the flavor paragraph, thanks. Still...would it have killed them to list privateer in the available talent trees? Im sure im not the first guy confused by it. Would have been nice to keep the smuggling tree as a requiremen
Wow, didnt bother to read the flavor paragraph, thanks. Still...would it have killed them to list privateer in the available talent trees? Im sure im not the first guy confused by it. Would have been nice to keep the smuggling tree as a requirement too, but oh well! Thanks muchfor the help!
Well, if you're the GM, then you can use either version or merge them together.
Well, if you're the GM, then you can use either version or merge them together.
sorry if I missed it, but I searched for an hour for an "official" clarification of the upgrades from Scum and Villainy. I'm looking for details on miniaturizing armor. I've found all kinds of speculations, but nothing "official". Can miniaturizing armor reduce the armor from "heavy" to "medium"?
As a new gamemaster, I need all the "official" backup I can get with this group Starting next week. This question already came up in the character generation/campaign setup session.
Thanks in advance!
sorry if I missed it, but I searched for an hour for an "official" clarification of the upgrades from Scum and Villainy. I'm looking for details on miniaturizing armor. I've found all kinds of speculations, but nothing "official". Can miniaturi
sorry if I missed it, but I searched for an hour for an "official" clarification of the upgrades from Scum and Villainy. I'm looking for details on miniaturizing armor. I've found all kinds of speculations, but nothing "official". Can miniaturizing armor reduce the armor from "heavy" to "medium"?
As a new gamemaster, I need all the "official" backup I can get with this group Starting next week. This question already came up in the character generation/campaign setup session.
Thanks in advance!
No. miniaturization of armor reduces its weight only, so you would be better off taking the armorplast upgrade.
No. miniaturization of armor reduces its weight only, so you would be better off taking the armorplast upgrade.
THOUGH THIS THREAD HAS BEEN KEPT AROUND DUE TO REFERANCE PURPOSES, IT HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN DISCONTINUED. AS SUCH, MUCH OF IT'S INFORMATION MAY NO LONGER BE ACCURATE ACCORDING TO MORE, UP TO DATE ERRATA SOURCES.
OK RD, I understand if you don't have the time to update this... But when did this happen?
OK RD, I understand if you don't have the time to update this...But when did this happen?
