|
|
| (34 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Feats==
| | Discussion topics have moved to their corresponding chapter's talk pages. |
| ===Dan's feat notes===
| |
| * Could the 'force resistance' feat be replicated with an Integrity specialty? Though it often requires the usage of supernatural aid, Integrity usually governs resistance to natural and supernatural mental influence - could resistance to the mind tricks of the Jedi perhaps be an Integrity specialty, rather than a feat? I started making my own list of feats I thought we should convert, and it, to the feat, resembles yours almost exactly, with the exception of force resistancen and lucky (which I love, I just forgot). I'm trying to avoid anything I can imagine simulating with abilities (Gearhead is just a Repair specialty, etc.).
| |
| **If force resistance is only a way to resisit the telepathic tricks of a jedi then it could perhaps be converted, though there are alien species who recieve a benfit beyond what a specialty provides. Such a thing could be covered instead in a species bonus of sorts, though we've discussed not giving aliens ability bonuses. Without looking at my wording I would have intended this feat to apply to more than just the jedi mind tricks, and therefore above and beyond the scope of an integrity specialty. If others prefer just a specility its fine by me. (Tony)
| |
| **I've found it challenging to come up with feats that don't directly augment abilities (Gearhead, etc.) We have a list of mostly combat feats, which affects attack styles, which is fine. Lightsaber feats will augment this. But we need more feats that have benefits beyond combat, and now we only have two (Eidetic Memory and Lucky). Perhaps many of these "ability based feats" can remain, but benefit in a different capacity. Perhaps we could adopt feats like "Dodge" and "Lightning Reflexes" to piloting or repair. For example, Gearhead could cut in half repair time or allow for repairs without having all the necessary parts. [[User:Kirkland|Kirkland]] 11:53, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| * Should Integrity be a mental ability? If you've already considered this and decided that it shouldn't, then don't worry about it. I think it should stay social, as it really represents a "strength of character" - strength of mind is willpower. That said, I just wanted to make sure the opinions of others jibed with my own on the matter.
| |
| **I like Integrity where it is, but I'm not overly opposed to a change if people want. (Tony)
| |
| **Keep it where it is. [[User:Kirkland|Kirkland]] 11:53, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| * Should the lightsaber forms be treated like martial arts styles? i.e. Each lightsaber has a set of feats associated with it, just as each martial arts style has a set of charms associated with it?
| |
| **That is how I intended it, and the way I started to format the lightsaber feat section. (With each style having its own short 'tree' of feats, check out new WOD martial arts for what I was thinking) I also thought there would be some force/lightsaber feats that are not style specific. Examples would be lightsaber deflection, and an advanced version of the same feat allowing a counter attack with the deflected bolt. (Tony)
| |
| | |
| ===Feats vs. Special Abilities===
| |
| Many species have many special abilities, which begs the question: Do we want to treat these special abilities as free feats that are restricted to a certain set of species? Or do we want to have a separate category for special abilities? Or does it really matter?
| |
| | |
| Some examples are:
| |
| *Hutt and Toydarian force resistance (stronger than the current Force Resistance feat we have)
| |
| *Wookiee Berserker Rage and Climbing Claws (which could really just be reflected in a free Climbing specialty)
| |
| *Quarren and Mon Calamari aquatic survival, which again could be reflected as free specialties
| |
| *Special abilities like species that can shoot acid, have venom, or other physical advantages.
| |
| *Twi'lek tentacle communication
| |
| [[User:Kirkland|Kirkland]] 12:34, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Vehicle and Space Combat==
| |
| ===Vehicle Stats===
| |
| *'''Hull''' and '''Shields''' would function as soak.
| |
| *'''Fire Control/Accuracy''' would be a bonus to the attacker's gunnery skill.
| |
| *'''Damage''' would be based on the weapon. For example, quad laser cannons would be 6L, Proton Torpedoes 9L, Concussion Missiles 10L, etc. Is there a different between Bashing and Lethal damage for vehicles, I'm thinking not?
| |
| *'''Damage Type''' - Weapons such as concussion missiles and ion cannons would penetrate the shield, removing it from the defender's soak.
| |
| *'''Shield Arcs''' - for simplicity I'm tempted to do away with shield arcs in favor of a "one shield covers all" approach.
| |
| *'''Maneuverability''' would be added to the pilots DV calculation. Something like (Piloting + Maneuverability) / 2.
| |
| **I'd like to keep this on a scale of 1 to 5. Examples:
| |
| ***1 - B-wings, TIE Bombers, Star Destroyers, most Heavy Cruisers
| |
| ***2 - Y-wings, TIE Fighters, MC80 Star Cruiser, most Medium Cruisers
| |
| ***3 - TIE Interceptors, X-wings, E-wings, most Light Cruisers
| |
| ***4 - TIE Advanced, A-wings, Picket Ships, MC100 & MC90 Star Cruisers
| |
| ***5 - TIE Defenders
| |
| *'''Health Levels''' would need to be determined on a per ship basis. Scale comes into consideration here.
| |
| | |
| ===Scale===
| |
| In my opinion there are 5 sizes: Personal, Vehicle, Starfighter, Capital, and Death Star. Each weapon on this scale does significantly more damage to the scale below it and significantly less to the scale above it. In addition, larger-scale vehicles are much easier to hit and much harder to damage. There are a couple different mechanisms we can use to deal with this but we need to find the right balance.
| |
| *'''DV Caps''' - for example, the Death Star scale DV cap would be zero. This could be determined by maneuverability. A starfighter is easy to hit with a blaster pistol if it's parked in a bay, but a moving starfighter would be harder to hit. However, lowering the DV means that all attacks are going to do a ton of extra damage. This can be negated by substantially larger hardness and soak values.
| |
| *'''Reducing target number for a success''' - if you're attacking something of a larger scale, perhaps you only need a 6, or a 5, or a 4 to achieve a success. A vehicle firing at a star destroyer in the atmosphere would roll their same dice pool, but get a lot more successes, reflecting the ease of aim. Again, this brings up the "ton of extra damage" problem, when the reality is reverse - it's hard to get any damage in at all against something of a larger scale.
| |
| *'''DV Bonuses/Penalties''' - instead of capping the DV, just reducing (or increasing) the DV by a fixed amount when going across scale.
| |
| *'''To scale or not''' - Do we want larger scale weapons to do large amounts of damage (10+) or do we want to keep things scaled and apply modifiers when we go across scale? If we don't take scale into consideration, then capital ships are going to have tons of health levels and their weapons are going to do tons of damage. I'm not sure we can maintain a proper balance when working with numbers that might get out of hand.
| |
| *'''Damage Bonuses/Penalties''' - when damaging something of a smaller scale, we could double the number of dice rolled or the number of successes on a damage roll. On the flip side, when damaging something on a larger scale, we could cut in half the number of dice rolled or the number of successes rolled. We could apply this multiple times when jumping across multiple scales (a starfighter would do 1/4 damage against the death star, for example).
| |
