Recent Star Wars Saga chat session with designers

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

Those are areas where game design, cannon and logic often seem to be at odds. I can't say if we changed anything, but I promise we looked at them and what we put in the book was what we thought would do the best job of combining those three concerns.

 

[Pbartender]

Those are areas where game design, cannon and logic often seem to be at odds.

Exactly... I can't tell how many times oe of my players would look at the stats for a thermal detonator (in any edition of the game) and say, "Why was Jabba so scared of it?"

I can't say if we changed anything, but I promise we looked at them and what we put in the book was what we thought would do the best job of combining those three concerns.

That's alls I can ask, I can't asks no more.

 

[RodneyThompson]

How about stun weapons and explosives? These are two things that, in my games at least, never see much play... In general, the players find them ineffective and don't feel as if they are getting enough bang for their buck.

Your player's don't see much use for stun weapons? ::boggle::

It's easily one of the most abused mechanics in my games. Setting weapons to stun takes away one enemy's actions for a round at bare minimum if the attack hits, even if the save fails, so my players do the whole stun/coup de grace combo whenever they get the chance. At worst, they deny that enemy an action next turn, which is great "crowd contol" for large groups of enemies. And, hey, statistically speaking at least some of them are going to fail that Fort save, meaning they're knocked out for many rounds.

 

[wingsandsword]

Here's another question for you guys...

How about stun weapons and explosives? These are two things that, in my games at least, never see much play... In general, the players find them ineffective and don't feel as if they are getting enough bang for their buck.

Will there be any changes as to how they are handled?

In my experience Stun weapons see heavy use, since if they hit, it's a fort save, and ignores vitality. Pelt the bad guy with Stun shots, force those saves, and the Stun setting rules in RCR make high vitality worthless. (or that's how we've always interpreted it and run that)

I'd rather see Stun weapons do normal damage on vitality, and only force a save if they hit wound, or I guess only do subdual if it's a HP system.

 

[Pbartender]

Your player's don't see much use for stun weapons? ::boggle::

It's easily one of the most abused mechanics in my games. Setting weapons to stun takes away one enemy's actions for a round at bare minimum if the attack hits, even if the save fails, so my players do the whole stun/coup de grace combo whenever they get the chance. At worst, they deny that enemy an action next turn, which is great "crowd contol" for large groups of enemies. And, hey, statistically speaking at least some of them are going to fail that Fort save, meaning they're knocked out for many rounds.

I'd have to double check, but I think with my players it was a hold over from the original D20 rules, in which, if I remember correctly, nothing happened on a successful save... Important NPCs were largely immune, due to their high saves. Mooks could get stunned, but by and large shooting them dead was just as effective.

I dunno... my players just never took a shine to setting blasters on stun.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I'd have to double check, but I think with my players it was a hold over from the original D20 rules, in which, if I remember correctly, nothing happened on a successful save... Important NPCs were largely immune, due to their high saves. Mooks could get stunned, but by and large shooting them dead was just as effective.

I dunno... my players just never took a shine to setting blasters on stun.

I did likewise for my games, since the stun setting as written in the RCR was way too good, and from what I've heard, can really short-circuit a climactic battle as the Big Bad get's stun-locked and the rest of the group just wails on him. I just changed the duration from rounds to minutes when the save was failed, and it worked pretty well.

For explosives, I added the ruling that if you are hit directly (i.e. grenade was aimed at you, not the square you're occupying), then your Reflex save is to determine whether or not the damage is applied to your Wound Points (make it, and the damage goes to Vitality. Fail, and you're a grease stain )

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Your player's don't see much use for stun weapons? ::boggle::

It's easily one of the most abused mechanics in my games. Setting weapons to stun takes away one enemy's actions for a round at bare minimum if the attack hits, even if the save fails, so my players do the whole stun/coup de grace combo whenever they get the chance. At worst, they deny that enemy an action next turn, which is great "crowd contol" for large groups of enemies. And, hey, statistically speaking at least some of them are going to fail that Fort save, meaning they're knocked out for many rounds.

Unless the StarWars rules on stunning are different from normal D20, you can't coup de grace a stunned creature, since it is not helpless.

But you are still quite correct - taking enemy actions is pretty useful, especially if you go against single high powered enemies.

 

[ValhallaGH]

For explosives, I added the ruling that if you are hit directly (i.e. grenade was aimed at you, not the square you're occupying), then your Reflex save is to determine whether or not the damage is applied to your Wound Points (make it, and the damage goes to Vitality. Fail, and you're a grease stain )

I really like that house rule. I must remember that the next time I run a game with WP/VP.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think the Skill Point mechanism will end up being something like this. I think the idea is that players tend to keep most of their skills at max ranks or at max cross-class ranks. I'm not sure that I agree with that assessment, but I'll take a look at it.

Closer to the truth is they keep them at max ranks or 5 ranks for the synergy bonuses or Prestige class requirements.

 

[wingsandsword]

Closer to the truth is they keep them at max ranks or 5 ranks for the synergy bonuses or Prestige class requirements.

Quite true, in my experience, PC's put ranks in skills for one of a handful of reasons.

1. It's a skill key to their character concept (like Pilot for a starfighter ace, or Diplomacy for a negotiator-oriented Jedi Consular), and they not only max it out, they do every trick they can to get Synergy bonuses, take feats to boost the skills, and go for PrC's and class abilities that augment the skill or take advantage of it.

2. They max them out if they are a class skill, as it's something useful and it makes sense for the character, and they've got the points to do it.

3. They get enough ranks in a skill to meet a PrC requirement (or a feat requirement or some other reason to take the skill), but don't take more ranks unless it's really needed.

4. They get a rank in it so they can use a Trained Only skill, and get enough synergy and ability score bonuses, and maybe an extra rank or two, to perform a few common tasks they want to do with that skill.

5. They start with a few ranks in them as a background/character concept thing, maybe for roleplaying, but never raise it past there.