PDA

View Full Version : Equipment muisings



canadiansatan
12-20-2008, 12:55 AM
Anything for clarifying equipment issues and/or advice.

I'll start off.

Should the jet pack really be only 300 credits?

It only get's 10 squares of movement before re-fueling. But how much should we charge for fuel?

Cy the Wander
12-20-2008, 12:25 PM
A standard jet pack contains 10 charges. Using a jet pack grants a character a fly speed of 6 squares per turn and can be used continuously from round to round. New fuel cells are 100 credits. SWSE page 136.

It isn't clear in the book but I would think that this 6 squares counts as movement and so using a jet pack costs a move action each round. I'm not sure if you can double move per turn, but if you can I would say you are using one charge per move action.

canadiansatan
12-20-2008, 02:46 PM
Well done exactly the point of this section!

Next, a lightsaber with a bondar crystal does stun damage. Does this "training lightaber" still ignore the DR of objects?

Cy the Wander
12-21-2008, 12:37 PM
SWSE page 122: The blade of a lightsaber is generated by an energy cell and focused through crystals within the hilt. The saber can cut through most materials (except another lightsaber blade, an energy shield, or a few exotic materials), given enough time.

SWSE page 162: Only creatures can be stunned. Droids, vehicles, and objects are immune to stunning effects.

KotOR page 66: Bondar Crystals convert the energy of a lightsaber blade into a different kind of energy. A lightsaber constructed with a bondar crystal deals stun damage instead of normal damage. Training lightsabers are made with bondar crystals.


Objects are not effected by stunning, so a training lightsaber cannot damage objects. Technically, I think it would be ignoring the DR of the object, but since a lightsaber with a bondar crystal cannot damage an object, ignoring DR of an object isn't very useful.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
Rereading the passage on stunning, I am going to change my mind. Here is another passage about stunning on page 162 of SWSE:
When you make a successful attack with a weapon that deals stun damage, subtract half of the stun damage from the target's hit points.

So a training lightsaber can damage objects, only doing half as much damage as a normal lightsaber does. It just cannot effect it, in other words, it can't knock it unconscious or push it down the condition track because of stunning.

Does anyone know where it is stated that a lightsaber ignores DR? It certainly makes sense, given what we see lightsabers cut through in the movies, but I don't see it in the description of lightsabers or on the chart on page 122 of the Sage Edition book.

canadiansatan
12-29-2008, 12:27 AM
So would a bullet from a slugthrower still burn up in a bondar lightsaber? Since this lightsaber does not cut through objects like a normal lightaber, would deflect effect the metal bullets?

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-29-2008, 08:01 AM
So a training lightsaber can damage objects, only doing half as much damage as a normal lightsaber does. It just cannot effect it, in other words, it can't knock it unconscious or push it down the condition track because of stunning.

This is correct.

Thus you can still deflect with a training lightsaber. Without getting into too much minutia that training lightsaber is still doing damage thus should be able to still destroy a slug shot at it.

However, it is my belief that it is really the skill of the wielder that is deflecting the shot. This is why a level 1 padawan with deflect and a training lightsaber can still deflect shots. Or another way to look at it is, that is why Deflect is a talent for a character to take and not an inherent property of a lightsaber.

canadiansatan
12-29-2008, 01:28 PM
There is the heart of the issue. The stun lightsaber would do half damage to objects (still pleanty to take out a tiny ball of metal).

However, does the stun lightsaber ignore the DR of objects? If not, then metal slugs would sometimes pass through the blade.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-29-2008, 04:37 PM
There is the heart of the issue. The stun lightsaber would do half damage to objects (still pleanty to take out a tiny ball of metal).

However, does the stun lightsaber ignore the DR of objects? If not, then metal slugs would sometimes pass through the blade.

I would say yes.

It IS still a lightsaber, the only thing that has changed is its "setting". It is only non-lethal in the sense that it is not going to kill any living creature, just knock them unconscious, therefore it should still ignore the DR of objects.

By that reasoning, you can still do whatever you normally would do with a lightsaber, block, deflect, redirect, etc...

Webhead
12-29-2008, 05:19 PM
I'm of a particularly mixed persuasion on this issue, but one that comes from an attempt to make internal sense of the circumstances rather than any rules consideration. Consider the following:

Training lightsabers (which deal stun damage) are intended to allow one to practice the weapon without causing permanent harm to another being. When the blade of the saber strikes someone, it delivers a jolt of low-level energy which can sufficiently disorient (stun) if applied appropriately but is otherwise harmless and does not penetrate the skin (such as when Leia is stunned aboard the Tantive IV).

If the weapon's energy dispersal is set such that it will not break skin, it is difficult to consider that it would penetrate anything more dense than skin (such as the metallic alloys of vehicles, buildings or droids). As such, any "damage" inflicted on a material struck (animate matter or not) is simply the release of the energized "shock" the weapon delivers upon contact.

Thus, I would say that a training saber would be incapable of penetrating most matter aside from negligible materials such as paper instead repelling off such a surface upon contact and energy discharge. As such, this would thus render any ability to ignore DR moot.

That said, from a rules standpoint, I would still allow players to use training sabers to use all their normal talents and abilities such as Block and Deflect, even if it only means that the deliverance of energy redirects physical projectiles away from it rather than incinerating them.

Likewise, it makes sense to me that a Jedi wielding one could not use it in conjunction with the Severing Strike talent. The saber is incapable (because it is specifically designed as such) of parting flesh, which is not such a rigorous material.

canadiansatan
12-30-2008, 01:30 AM
Thank you webhead. I would add that just like severing strike would make no sense, block and deflect would only work against other energy weapons.

If anyone's ever seen the "lightsaber" in the garage sale episode of Venture Bros. that's my thought.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-30-2008, 09:16 AM
*snip*

In the abstract world of hit points this is too specific, breaking the skin or not breaking the skin is not and should not be brought up, that is simply one possible way a lightsaber can damage someone. You can't set a lightsaber to "not break skin" setting, you are setting it to stun, which according to game mechanics still deals damage, even though it is damage that won't kill you just knock you out.

I haven't read over the entry for this specific crystal but IIRC, in game terms, it is only changing the damage type. Thus the damage type should be the only thing that changes, you aren't changing any other properties of the lightsaber. Just like when you set a blaster pistol to stun, it is still a blaster pistol, the only thing that has changed is the damage type.

I can't remember the specifics of severing strike, but I doubt it would come into play here. For severing strike to work you need to deal damage to a character that is over their DT and it is highly unlikely that one would be able to deal that much stun damage to a character. So using severing strike as a reason for doesn't work either, and if someone were able to deal that much stun damage (keep in mind you apply half of whatever stun damage you actually rolled to a character) then I would allow severing strike to work.

Lets try to break it down anyway, lets say and 8th level Jedi Knight with severing strike and this stun lightsaber attacks someone, lets say they spend a destiny point to auto-crit also, then they roll damage, let's say they have a Str of 16 and are wielding it two-handed also, that is 2d8+6 (from Str) +4 (from level). Lets say they also roll max damage = 26 points of damage x2 for the auto-crit = 52 points of stun damage. That means the target is obviously going to be moved 2 steps down the CT and they are taking 26 points of actual damage. If that 26 points of damage is over their DT then, yeah I would allow severing strike to work in this case. It seems extreme but yeah, it actually is cause the character spent a destiny point, got lucky and rolled max damage, etc...

So in the right hands a lightsaber is a deadly weapon, even a stun lightsaber. Is it logical to use one all the time? No, because you are actually only dealing stun damage, so you will never be able to kill someone with it, just knock them out. Should you pick up one instead of a stun baton? Well, given you still need to be proficient with a lightsaber to use one I would say, it couldn't hurt to have one around if you are a Jedi.

Also, yes these are the Jedi's training lightsabers, and given the fact that if Jedi are training with them, I 1) doubt that Jedi over say 3rd level would be using them regularly and 2) that Jedi that are sparring with training lightsabers would ever using severing strike against each other.

Webhead
12-30-2008, 09:53 AM
...*snippity*...

As I said, I was attempting to apply some internal logic based upon my understanding of the purpose of the training lightsaber within the diagetic space of the setting rather than the reprecussions of the rules mechanics.

In the Star Wars universe, a person can accidentally chop someone in half with a regular lightsaber with a simple, misguided flick of a wrist. No intent to harm is needed, only carelessness or lack of skill. The weapon is simply that dangerous. So dangerous that one can even accidentally injure/kill oneself with the weapon if not careful.

Because of this, training lightsabers were invented to prevent young and unskilled students from maiming or killing each other while sparring. The saber was designed to reduce the power output so that contact with the blade would only deliver an uncomfortable shock of energy rather than dismemberment. Its equivalent to the safety switch on a firearm. It is intended to prevent accidental injury.

Here's a little info from Wookieepedia:


Training lightsabers, also known as practice sabers, were low-powered lightsabers used by Jedi Initiates and younglings.

Using the training weapons, younglings learned the basics of wielding a lightsaber. Like a regular lightsaber set to low power, they could not sever limbs or pierce flesh. Skin contact was painful, producing burns which could cause serious welts and bruises.

As such, it was my personal stance to consider training sabers to be incapable of penetration and that the "damage" delivered by the saber was the damage of the discharge of energy, not of the saber physically seperating matter.

What that says to me in game terms is that the saber still delivers stun damage normally, even to inanimate objects, but strikes and repells off surfaces and cannot penetrate them. Thus, I would not allow a training saber to slice through a metal door, but with sufficient persistence, could be used to "shock" a droid into submission (by dealing enough damage to it to reduce it to 0 hit points).

To me, it is an issue of internal logical application (i.e. what makes sense within the established setting based on what I know), not about its interaction with the abstraction of Hit Point systems.

In the fictional reality of Star Wars, a character doesn't have to intentionally have and use the "Severing Strike" talent to purposefully or accidentally cut someone's hand off with a lightsaber. If you strike someone's wrist with the weapon, their hand will come off. The training saber was built as a safeguard against such eventualities.

To me, it's a "I use a club to cut the rope" scenario. Even though a club deals damage and a rope has hit points, logic dictates that no amout of badgering a hanging rope with a club will severe the rope. Likewise, since my understanding is that a training saber is incapable of penetrating flesh, logic dictates to me that it is incapable of penetrating anything more dense than flesh and thus I would not allow such activity within the game.

My 2 long-winded credits...

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-30-2008, 01:26 PM
GASP!

Webhead, I never thought this day would come! When you and I finally do not agree on something!

While normally I might agree that it is a judgment call on the part of the GM, I actually do not think so in this case simply because it is spelled out in the description of the crystal.

However, this is a good question overall to bring up, can stun damage actually deal damage in the sense that it will break/destroy something? Applying logic to the SW universe one might say no and be fully correct under normal circumstances.

In this case, and in the end I guess it is the GMs game thus it should be left up to the GM.

Webhead
12-30-2008, 01:40 PM
...In this case, and in the end I guess it is the GMs game thus it should be left up to the GM.

Exactly. I'm not saying that other GMs couldn't or shouldn't allow training lightsabers to act otherwise. I was just trying to set down my particular understandings and thus how I would treat them in my game (regardless of system used).

So, if you use a training lightsaber in my game, don't expect to slice through stuff! ;)

The same can be said of how I handle blasters set on "stun". It has been observed in the movies (and a couple other sources), that shots from blasters set on "stun" are not bolts of energy, but a dispersed pulse or "wave" of low-level energy. As such, I do not allow the Deflect talent to be used against blasters set to stun because there is no specific projectile to deflect. You are being hit by a wave of energy. Now, the rules don't make any distinction between "stun" and "kill" bolts and thus suggest that players can deflect them normally. And if a GM wishes to handle it that way in their games, that's totally fine. But in my games, I choose to make that distinction. :)

I do it for 2 primary reasons: 1) it holds a certain internal logic for me, and 2) it gives another option for attacks that can be effective against Jedi besides explosives and exotic weapons like "sonic blasters" or cortosis weapons, which feel kind of contrived when they show up every combat.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-03-2009, 01:08 PM
Another option is to, as GM, decide what "Droids, vehicles, and objects are immune to stunning effects" means in regards to stun damage or for ion damage "creatures are immune to ion effects".

In my games we interpret this to mean that you take some damage, but you don't get knocked down the condition track at all, regardless of the damage taken.

Cause if you have a stun lightsaber... OH! I just thought of this too! Those training lightsabers are often used for younglings like we see in episode II, that means those lightsabers are the SMALL version, meaning they are only doing 2d6 damage on a hit. So if you use a small size stun lightsaber against a droid, object, or vehicle you are going to be doing even less damage, regardless of the DR anyway.

I still think they should ignore DR, the amount of damage they are doing on average in minimal compared to how effective a non-stunning lightsaber would be. On average a lightsaber deals 9 points of damage, if it is a stun lightsaber that is half the damage actually being dealt to the object, vehicle or droid, or 4 points of damage. Even with a Strength bonus of +3 that is still only 6 points of damage being dealt with a stun lightsaber.

Barrier Peaks
01-04-2009, 01:53 PM
Just a late-comer's opinion.

The rules on Stunning (Saga page 162) read: "Only creatures can be stunned. Droids, vehicles, and objects are immune to stunning effects." (Emphasis is mine.)

The half damage from the attack that is suffered by a target is technically (IMO) a part of the "stunning effects" described, since they are an effect of being hit by a stunning weapon. In that interpretation, this would mean that droids, vehicles, and objects would be immune to them.

Even though the description of bondar crystals in KotOR doesn't specify that they do not ignore DR, it doesn't make sense to me that they would simply because they (the lightsabers) are designed for safety and training. If they ignored DR, it would more or less ignore the point of a training lightsaber.

If we go back one edition of the rules to Revised Core and check the entry on training lightsabers in the Power of the Jedi sourcebook, page 54, the paragraph on blade diffusion reads: "A training lightsaber does not focus its power strongly enough to cut through objects. As a result, this weapon does not ignore hardness as a standard lightsaber does." (Emphasis is, once again, mine.)

Hardness in the RCR is the equivalent of DR in Saga. While it's true that Saga and RCR are two different editions, you can clearly see the intent. To be internally consistent between editions, training lightsabers would not ignore DR.

All that aside, I can probably get an official ruling for you if you really, really want one. Otherwise, you may as well do whatever suits you best.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-04-2009, 04:18 PM
... I can probably get an official ruling for you if you really, really want one.

How is this possible!? Access to resources the rest of us do not have!!??

Inquiring minds want to know!

Barrier Peaks
01-04-2009, 04:43 PM
How is this possible!? Access to resources the rest of us do not have!!??

Inquiring minds want to know!

I'm sure that many Bothans will die to bring us this information.

Cy the Wander
01-04-2009, 06:58 PM
I don't think a lightsaber with a Bondar Crystal would allow the use of Severing Strike. SWSE, page 218, "Severing Strike: When you deal damage with a lightsaber that is equal to or greater than both the target's current hit points and the target's damage threshold (that is, when you would deal enough damage to kill your target), you may choose to use this talent."

There is no way you can deal enough damage to a target to kill it with a stunning lightsaber, it would knock a living creature out and not kill them. Technically, you could destroy a droid with such a lightsaber, but I would say Severing Strike only works against living creatures. Living creatures can be killed, droids are destroyed, not killed.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-08-2009, 11:17 AM
I don't think a lightsaber with a Bondar Crystal would allow the use of Severing Strike. SWSE, page 218, "Severing Strike: When you deal damage with a lightsaber that is equal to or greater than both the target's current hit points and the target's damage threshold (that is, when you would deal enough damage to kill your target), you may choose to use this talent."

There is no way you can deal enough damage to a target to kill it with a stunning lightsaber, it would knock a living creature out and not kill them. Technically, you could destroy a droid with such a lightsaber, but I would say Severing Strike only works against living creatures. Living creatures can be killed, droids are destroyed, not killed.

Good point! I would rule that since you are dealing stun damage there is no dismemberment possible.

If you look at my example above though you can see that it is possible to deal a ton of damage with a stun lightsaber, couldn't hurt to carry one around!
--- Merged from Double Post ---
Now, to keep the discussion going!

Jet packs in space! We see Obi Wan use one to board a CIS ship in the latest episode of The Clone Wars.

Is it too generous to give a character wearing a jet pack in space a space speed of 1 square?

Consider that 1 space square is about 500 km and it sounds incredible BUT there is no gravity or resistance so any sort of propulsion should be able to move you at incredible speeds!

Right!? Right!?;)

Discuss!

Webhead
01-08-2009, 11:35 AM
...Now, to keep the discussion going!

Jet packs in space! We see Obi Wan use one to board a CIS ship in the latest episode of The Clone Wars...

While I don't know if the subject has been broached at all within the context of Star Wars Saga, Star Wars D6 made a distinction between "jet packs" and "rocket packs". Namely, "jet packs" were less expensive and had generally fewer charges but their design required atmosphere to function. "Rocket packs" were personal propulsion devices specifically intended for use in space but were a bit more costly.

As to whether or not a rocket pack would allow a character to move on starship scale...I'm not sure. Considering their are some slower transports that only move 2 or 3 squares, even 1 square of movement seems a bit much. Tricky question...

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-08-2009, 11:41 AM
While I don't know if the subject has been broached at all within the context of Star Wars Saga, Star Wars D6 made a distinction between "jet packs" and "rocket packs". Namely, "jet packs" were less expensive and had generally fewer charges but their design required atmosphere to function. "Rocket packs" were personal propulsion devices specifically intended for use in space but were a bit more costly.

As to whether or not a rocket pack would allow a character to move on starship scale...I'm not sure. Considering their are some slower transports that only move 2 or 3 squares, even 1 square of movement seems a bit much. Tricky question...

I concur.

I am not up on ALL the new equipment presented in the latest Saga supplements but I don't think rocketpacks have been introduced yet. However, the Rocket Jumper (nod to WEG) talent tree has been and the talents apply to jetpacks.

SO, unless it specifically states in the jetpack description...

Question, did rocket packs have listed space speeds in WEG? I can't remember.:confused:

Webhead
01-08-2009, 12:06 PM
...Question, did rocket packs have listed space speeds in WEG? I can't remember.:confused:

Based on the rocket pack listing in the corebook, it does not indicate that the user gains a "Space" movement rate. I'm pretty sure there were additional rocket pack listings in one of the Fantastic Technology guides, so I'll check their to see if they indicate otherwise.

The entry in the corebook explains that rocket packs are heavier and louder than jet packs, but are faster. And I was surprised to discover that the credit listing for the sample rocket pack was only 400, while the Hush-About Jet Pack was 1800, however this is probably due to the fact that owning a jet pack only requires a fee or permit, while rocket packs (which are generally intended for military or security use) are of "restricted" availability. Also, the Hush-About is probably on the pricier end of jet packs as it is designed for greatly reduced noise output.

Barrier Peaks
01-08-2009, 04:04 PM
Consider that 1 space square is about 500 km and it sounds incredible BUT there is no gravity or resistance so any sort of propulsion should be able to move you at incredible speeds!

Concerning the size of a space square being equal to 500km, I think that's a bit large. Saga Core, page 165 under the heading "Starship Scale" reads:

"In starship scale, each square of the grid is abstract, representing a variable amount of space depending on the vehicles involved. In most cases, one square is hundreds or even thousands of meters wide."

The size of a square in space is subjective to the size of the vehicles involved. Though the text indicates that a square can be thousands of meters wide, I think that 500km is way too big. 500 meters is probably a lot more in line with the intended design.

Given that, I think it's more than reasonable for a player to have a movement of 1 square in space using the proper personal propulsion equipment.

canadiansatan
01-08-2009, 10:47 PM
[quote=Inquisitor Tremayne;58961]Good point! I would rule that since you are dealing stun damage there is no dismemberment possible.
quote]

Well if a stun lightsaber isn't intense enough to cut through flesh and bone, then steel would be an issue.

Moving on to jet packs
--- Merged from Double Post ---
Jet packs could operate just fine. The issue is that a jet pack has 10 charges. And given that you would have to use just as many charges stopping as starting, you'd only get 5 charges for forward thrust.

From what I would guess it would stack each round as far as movement, having the 6 square move add up to a 30 square speed after 5 rounds. 30 squares=45 meters so under 50m / turn(6 sec) 300m/min, 1800m/hr, let's round up again to 2Km/hr. So, if it is 500 km /starship square, we're looking at over a weekand a half for one starship square.

Barrier Peaks
01-10-2009, 09:28 AM
Okay, I sent in my questions, as follows:


1.) Bondar crystals cause stun damage. Does a lightsaber equipped with bondar crystals still ignore DR?
2.) Can training lightsabers deflect blaster bolts or solid projectiles?
3.) Does the half damage caused by a stunning weapon apply to non-living targets?The reply I got back was this:


Training lightsabers/bondar crystal sabers behave in all ways, except damage, like lightsabers. That includes ignoring DR, deflecting, etc. Like normal stun damage rules, the half damage only applies to living targets. Most nonliving targets are immune to stun damage. So, you canít cut open a door with a bondar crystal saber, but you can bypass an elite trooperís DR.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-10-2009, 11:02 AM
Awesome! Duly noted!

Thanks for doing that, so whom did you send your questions too?

Barrier Peaks
01-10-2009, 01:29 PM
I know a couple of the guys who write the Saga material. It was one of them. I gave them the link to this forum, as well, so they may even drop in at some point.

Gary

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-10-2009, 05:25 PM
I know a couple of the guys who write the Saga material. It was one of them. I gave them the link to this forum, as well, so they may even drop in at some point.

Gary

Whaaaaaa!!??

You are my new best friend!!!:D

Cy the Wander
01-11-2009, 09:16 AM
I don't think a standard jetpack would work in space. My vague understanding is that for something like that to work in space you would need to carry the air (O2) to allow the fuel to burn. I imagine a jet pack strapped on the back and a something like a SCUBA tank behind that. Anyone know how much a tank of air weights? Probably something like 20 kilograms would be my wild ass guess.

Say 200 credits for the tank of air (25 credits for a refill), one hour of work and a DC 20 Mechanics check to modify the jet pack to also release the oxygen in the right amount. There should be some danger of this whole thing exploding if you take a critical hit: rocket fuel plus pure O2 plus laser fire = flaming ball of firey death.

Webhead
01-12-2009, 12:11 PM
I don't think a standard jetpack would work in space. My vague understanding is that for something like that to work in space you would need to carry the air (O2) to allow the fuel to burn. I imagine a jet pack strapped on the back and a something like a SCUBA tank behind that. Anyone know how much a tank of air weights? Probably something like 20 kilograms would be my wild ass guess...

In D6, that was the differentiation that was made between "jet packs" and "rocket packs". Jet packs required external atmosphere for combustion. Rocket packs had internal chambers that allow combustion to occur inside the device allowing for propulsion in a vacuum.


...There should be some danger of this whole thing exploding if you take a critical hit: rocket fuel plus pure O2 plus laser fire = flaming ball of firey death.

Funny that you mention that, because D6 mentioned the very same thing in the description of rocket packs, that stray blaster fire was dangerous if a shot should rupture the fuel housing as it would likely cause the entire pack to explode. They didn't give any "hard and fast" rules for it, but made it clear that one definately should seek to avoid such an eventuality.

canadiansatan
01-21-2009, 11:24 PM
Any suggestions on how to convert that idea to saga'ish rules?

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-22-2009, 06:58 AM
Any suggestions on how to convert that idea to saga'ish rules?

I would avoid it.

There are already rules for attacking an object worn/carried by a person. I would just say that if someone does shoot it, that it explodes, dealing x amount of damage in a 2-square burst or splash.

Quick and simple!

canadiansatan
01-22-2009, 08:31 AM
Well that's long enough for Jet packs


What would the rules be for hiding explosives on a vehicle?

Webhead
01-22-2009, 09:19 AM
...What would the rules be for hiding explosives on a vehicle?

As an on-the-spot ruling, I would say that the result of the Mechanics check to place the explosive would act as the DC for any Perception checks to detect the concealed device.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Well that's long enough for Jet packs


What would the rules be for hiding explosives on a vehicle?

I would say stealth check, modified by size.

Or check the Stealth and mechanics skill descriptions, I think this might be covered already.

Maybe in Scum & Villainy.

Webhead
01-22-2009, 11:53 AM
I would say stealth check, modified by size.

Or check the Stealth and mechanics skill descriptions, I think this might be covered already.

Maybe in Scum & Villainy.

Well, the "Conceal Item" rules under the Stealth skill involve hiding a object on your person, but I see no reason why it could not be extended to apply to objects concealed elsewhere. And bonuses/penalties are provided based on the object's size in the description.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-22-2009, 12:09 PM
Well, the "Conceal Item" rules under the Stealth skill involve hiding a object on your person, but I see no reason why it could not be extended to apply to objects concealed elsewhere. And bonuses/penalties are provided based on the object's size in the description.

Anything under setting an explosive device under mechanics?

Don't have my books with me.

Webhead
01-22-2009, 12:37 PM
Anything under setting an explosive device under mechanics?

Don't have my books with me.

Nothing about concealing, hence why my knee-jerk judgement was to use the "Place explosive" check result as the DC to conceal it. My thinking is that the saboteur would be both placing the charge for optimal damage and minimal exposure at the same time.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-22-2009, 02:51 PM
Nothing about concealing, hence why my knee-jerk judgement was to use the "Place explosive" check result as the DC to conceal it. My thinking is that the saboteur would be both placing the charge for optimal damage and minimal exposure at the same time.

AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Check whatever book the Saboteur PrC is in!

You are like my secretary! haha!

You keep giving me ideas to go off of!

canadiansatan
01-24-2009, 02:34 AM
How about this, what would happen if a Jedi uses the Block talent trying to stop an unarmed attack from a cortosis gauntlet (TOTG)?

When a character trys to hit the lightsaber blade, and thus render it inactive, there are rules set up. What if it's the defender who runs there lightsaber into the gauntlet?

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-24-2009, 09:32 AM
How about this, what would happen if a Jedi uses the Block talent trying to stop an unarmed attack from a cortosis gauntlet (TOTG)?

When a character trys to hit the lightsaber blade, and thus render it inactive, there are rules set up. What if it's the defender who runs there lightsaber into the gauntlet?

I am not sure on the specifics (at work and don't have my books) but I would assume that it would only work in those instances that are specifically described under the rules for the cortosis gauntlet.

To speak on behalf of the block talent, the block talent does not specify that you are physically blocking the attack. It was left abstract like that for a reason. Otherwise whenever a Jedi would be facing off against a martial arts master and block their unarmed attacks the MA master would be losing hands and feet, and that is just not the case.

Normally you need to target something specifically in order to deal damage to it. Read: attacking an object in the SECR.

Or as a Jedi Knight you take the Severing Strike talent.

canadiansatan
01-24-2009, 06:03 PM
My brain is picturing my Jedi seeing a guy trowing a punch at him. Using the block talent he puts his lightsaber in the way. A normal martial artist would give up the attack (a possible interpretation for the attack being negated). I would say the jedi would at least be in unfavorable cirumstances, since the most common form of blocking would be ineffective.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-25-2009, 12:10 PM
My brain is picturing my Jedi seeing a guy trowing a punch at him. Using the block talent he puts his lightsaber in the way. A normal martial artist would give up the attack (a possible interpretation for the attack being negated). I would say the jedi would at least be in unfavorable cirumstances, since the most common form of blocking would be ineffective.

Actually, the cortosis gauntlet requires the wearer to ready and action to block the lightsaber attack. This is a separate from of the block talent.

So really nothing would happen to the Jedi.

The only time a cortosis gauntlet is effective is if the wearer uses a standard action to ready to block with it.

Next!:biggrin:

canadiansatan
01-25-2009, 07:01 PM
I guess it's just hard for me to see the difference between blocking the lightsaber with a cortosis gauntlet and blocking the cortosis gauntlet with a lightsaber.

But yes, that's all the agreement we're gonna get, moving on.

Inquisitor Tremayne
02-02-2009, 10:38 AM
I guess it's just hard for me to see the difference between blocking the lightsaber with a cortosis gauntlet and blocking the cortosis gauntlet with a lightsaber.

So, are you saying that you possibly see a martial artist or someone unarmed but wearing cortosis gauntlets making an attack with the gauntlets?

Because that would be the only way a Jedi could use the block talent to negate the attack. And cortosis gauntlets aren't weapons anyway so one couldn't make an attack with the gauntlets.

So I don't understand where your confusion comes from.

Webhead
02-02-2009, 10:50 AM
...And cortosis gauntlets aren't weapons anyway so one couldn't make an attack with the gauntlets...

A character can effectively "attack" with the cortosis gauntlets by way of making an unarmed attack while wearing them. That, of course, would be subject to all normal rules for unarmed attacks.

Inquisitor Tremayne
02-02-2009, 11:23 AM
A character can effectively "attack" with the cortosis gauntlets by way of making an unarmed attack while wearing them. That, of course, would be subject to all normal rules for unarmed attacks.

Yes you can make an unarmed attack while wearing cortosis gauntlets BUT the gauntlets have no effect in that situation, you are hitting with your fists or melee weapon, not the gauntlets.

Re-read the description of the gauntlets, they only work when you ready an action to parry/block a lightsaber with them.

So effectively you cannot attack WITH the gauntlets but can make unarmed attacks while wearing them.

Webhead
02-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Yes you can make an unarmed attack while wearing cortosis gauntlets BUT the gauntlets have no effect in that situation, you are hitting with your fists or melee weapon, not the gauntlets.

Re-read the description of the gauntlets, they only work when you ready an action to parry/block a lightsaber with them.

So effectively you cannot attack WITH the gauntlets but can make unarmed attacks while wearing them.

As written, you would be correct. I suppose that I would then, for my games, house-rule that successful use of the Block talent against an unarmed attack with cortosis gauntlets would carry the same effect. This is just a personal judgment call based on my conceptualization of what the Block talent represents and the logical extention therefrom.

Inquisitor Tremayne
02-02-2009, 11:34 AM
As written, you would be correct. I suppose that I would then, for my games, house-rule that successful use of the Block talent against an unarmed attack with cortosis gauntlets would carry the same effect. This is just a personal judgment call based on my conceptualization of what the Block talent represents and the logical extention therefrom.

So then Jedi could never or would choose to never use the block talent from unarmed attacks coming from someone wearing the gauntlets. Meaning you basically just made any unarmed character extremely dangerous to a Jedi!

Webhead
02-02-2009, 12:42 PM
So then Jedi could never or would choose to never use the block talent from unarmed attacks coming from someone wearing the gauntlets. Meaning you basically just made any unarmed character extremely dangerous to a Jedi!

It gives another (albeit extremely rare) option for attacks that can actually be effectual against Jedi. As it stands, Jedi tend to have exceptionally sound defenses and are really only in danger against splash damage, area attacks (excluding the most common area attack -autofire- since they can now reduce autofire damage with Deflect) and other Force Users. I had already house-ruled blasters set to stun such that they were non-Deflectable (both in order to apply internal logic to my understanding of how they work and to make them a potential tactic against Jedi). My judgment on the cortosis gauntlet is of similar origin. Thus, in my campaigns, this would expand the list of Jedi vulnerabilities as follows:

1) Grenades, explosives or huge weapons (expensive and/or contrived)
2) Walker or starship scale weapons (overkill much?)
3) Force Powers (perhaps the most common legitimate challenge for Jedi characters)
4) Blasters set to Stun (limited to a range of 6 squares per the "Stun Setting" rules)
5) Cortosis weapons/gear (extremely rare and obscure and requires engaging the Jedi in melee where he/she is most capable!)

Still not a terribly wide range of vulnerabilities compared to what the other classes have to worry about.

Also worth noting is that, in my conceptualization of the Star Wars universe, cortosis is an excruciatingly rare substance (very much contrary to how the KotOR video game regards them), so rare than most people don't even know if its existence. One must also remember that someone without the Martial Arts feat still provokes an AoO when attacking unarmed, so Joe-Schmoe with cortosis gauntlets still has to be wary of attacking a Jedi unarmed in the first place, something which is generally regarded as suicidal.

Inquisitor Tremayne
02-02-2009, 12:52 PM
*snip!*

Makes sense.

Let's move on.

The new equipment presented in the Clone Wars CG are updated versions of weapons presented in the RCR. My particular favorite, the Firelance blaster rifle.

The Firelance in RCR had an increased stun range in Saga it deals 4d6 stun damage instead of 3d8. Not that much of an increase at all.

Personally, they all seem less than exceptional or less appealing than they did in the RCR.

Comments?

Webhead
02-02-2009, 12:59 PM
Makes sense...

There's always a method to my madness and that is essentially it: whatever seems to make the most sense within the context of my game.