P-47's Fix-It Shop

“That blaster not quite working how you think it should? A scanner that doesn’t seem to be able to decide what its job is? An attachment that’s totally useless? Bring it to P-47’s Fix-It Shop! We fix anything, even star destroyers!”

I’ve been looking through some gear recently, and been reminded of various objections I have to the stats of various items, so I decided to start a thread about it.

If there are any items that have stats that don’t make sense, are broken, just don’t work right, or don’t seem to match the narrative, please ask me and we’ll work out a fix. This sort of tinkering is something I greatly enjoy, so I hope this catches on.

Here, I’ll start it off:
The DR-45 “Dragoon” Cavalry Blaster is a prime example. It has only one Encumbrance and can use both Ranged (Light) and Ranged (Heavy) with no trade-offs between the two, meaning you just choose whichever you prefer, and there’s never a reason to switch. It has decent range, decent stats, and fairly high HP (3). It also has an elevated price, but it isn’t enough to balance out the utility and general competence of the weapon. These have made it, I have noticed, a favorite of “power gamers,” “min-maxers” whatever you want to call them.

I’d increase the Encumbrance to 2, first of all, and then I really just need to adjust the interchangeability. So first, remove Accurate 1. Second, the rifle conversion now gives it Accurate 1, but it cannot be dual-wielded (unlike the Ranged [Light] version).

“But wait, that just makes Ranged (Heavy) better than Ranged (Light)!”
Yes. It’s a carbine. However, it has the added utility of being able to swap to Ranged (Light), a more common skill. This makes it easier to pass off to someone, and Ranged (Light) also allows you to use it single-handed at Medium range, whereas the carbine is restricted to single-handed at Short range.


P-47 I thought I would give you a change at answering this question from a GM point of view. (Sorry for the extra long post.)

This is the response I got back FFG. Don’t know if you have any ideas on how to fix this? The big question for me is how to adjust the size difference to frame templates during Starship crafting in Fully Operational.

Example is the VCX100 light freighter (PG 91 Starships and speeders). It has a Silhouette of 5. But in Fully Operational PG. 79 under Vehicle and Starship crafting. The Freighter template silhouette starts at 4. But under table 3-5 PG 81 you could just spend 1 advantage point to take Larger Scope and increase the silhouette from 4 to 5. This is were my question comes in.

There is no real guidelines on what is the new stats for your silhouette 5 freighter. If you go with the next size up frame from Starship Crafting it’s a Corvette. Which will make the ship to large for a PC party because of a 100 person crew. Even if you spend 2 advantage points and take Integrated Improvement and half the crew in size you are still taking about 50 crew. So if you could come up with some house rules to cover this. Thank you.

Here is a copy of email from 09/05/2021

Rules Question:
I have question in the book “Starships and Speeders” under Vehicle and Starship crafting. Under Frame Templates for Freighter Integration improvements options. Larger Scope: Increase the craft’s silhouette by one (Limit 1) How does making silhouette 4 to 5 effect the Freighter, engine and Hull template? Price 50000 Rarity 3 Check Hard (3 difficulty) Mechanics Time 10 days Hull Trauma Threshold: 25 Sensor Range: Short. Crew: 1 Pilot, 1 Co-pilot. Encumbrance Capacity: 50 Passenger Capacity: 10 Customization Hard Points: 10

Answer from FFG

Indeed, vehicle modifications change their specifications to different degrees.

Making the chassis heavier or larger will inevitably require replacing the engine with a larger or more powerful one. This will probably change its handling and therefore it will probably require more crew members to maneuver it.

All these adjustments will have to be validated by your game master, and you will be able to define with him concretely how your modifications will impact the ship.

This is what the insert below indicates:

I advise you to have a few cookies to corrupt your game master before you start modifying your vehicle, you will get a good result more easily!



Small correction, Starships and Speeders doesn’t have the vehicle crafting rules, that’s in Fully Operational.
(Also, that image can’t be viewed)

Great question, though.

1 Like

Hmm, this is a complicated question because of all the moving pieces in play (and these crafting rules aren’t that great to begin with), but I’ll take a shot at it.

First, let's talk concepts

You aren’t changing frames, just upsizing your ship. However, this will have various ramifications for stats such as crew, encumbrance capacity, engines, etc.

Such a dramatic change will have different effects on different templates. For a walker, now you’re taking it from something like an AT-ST to a full-on tank like the AT-TE (which should really be sil 4, not sure why it’s 3) or AT-AT, while a starfighter goes from a snubfighter to a probably multi-crew strike-fighter/bomber, and a Star Destroyer becomes a Battlecruiser.

Sometimes, however, you’ll move from sil 4 to 5 or vice-versa, and this has more ramifications than most other changes since you’re changing size class. There’s a pretty large jump between silhouette 4 and 5, and ships in either silhouette have their own limitations and restrictions (note: the VCX-100 acts and is sized like a silhouette 4 ship. A better example is a ship like the Wayfarer). Crew requirements can also change dramatically, as can encumbrance and passenger capacity.

Finally, I’d also increase the cost of components based on the size of the ship. So engines for a star destroyer should probably cost X*(8-2=6, min 0.5), while engines for a speeder bike would cost X*(2-2=min 0.5). But that’s somewhat outside the scope of what I’m addressing here, and is more a problem with the crafting rules on the whole.

Personally, I think it’s a little silly that you have to spend Advantage to manipulate the size. I’d manipulate the cost of the frame instead. No one who sets out to design a star destroyer is going to end up with a corvette, unless they’re building with Legos and realized they were a little over-ambitious for their collection.

That out of the way, let’s take a crack at the templates. I’d like to try every single one, but we’ll start with the Freighter since that’s what you asked about:

Freighter (Larger Scope):
Class: Freighter
Silhouette: 5 (+1)
Hull Trauma Threshold: 50 (+~50%)
Sensor Range: Short (+1)
Crew: 6: one Pilot, one Co-Pilot, one Navigator, one Comms/Sensors Operator, one Engineer, one Loadmaster. (+4)
Passenger Capacity: 6 (+2)
Encumbrance Capacity: 400 (+300%; twice as long, twice as wide, four times the capacity)
Customization Hard Points: 10
(Optional: Frame Cost: 100,000 [+100%])

Freighter (Elegant Design):
Vehicle Type: Freighter
Silhouette: 3
Hull Trauma Threshold: 18 (-50%)
Sensor Range: Close
Crew: 2: one Pilot, one Co-Pilot.
Passenger Capacity: 2 (-50%)
Encumbrance Capacity: 25 (-75%; half the size, half the length, a quarter the capacity)
Customization Hard Points: 9.
(Optional: Frame Cost: 50,000 [Miniaturization is expensive; anything saved in raw materials is lost in the process of making it as small as possible].)

1 Like

Follow up to the original answer, with additional templates:

Speeder Bike

Speeder Bike (Larger Scope):
Class: Landspeeder (changed)
Silhouette: 3 (+1)
Hull Trauma threshold: 5 (+66%)
Maximum Altitude: 50 meters (+~200%)
Sensor Range: Close
Crew: One Pilot
Passenger Capacity: 1
Encumbrance Capacity: 4
Customization Hard Points: 5
(Optional: Frame Cost: 500 [+100%])
Notes: Becomes a high-performance racing speeder. Don’t really know why you’d want to increase the silhouette of a Speeder Bike, though.

Speeder Bike (Elegant Design):
Vehicle Type: Jumpspeeder
Silhouette: 1 (-1)
Hull Trauma Threshold: 1 (-66%)
Maximum Altitude: 5 meters (-66%)
Sensor Range: None (-1)
Crew: One Pilot
Passenger Capacity: None
Encumbrance Capacity: None (-1)
Customization Hard Points: 4 (-33%)
(Optional: Frame Cost: 250)


Landspeeder (Larger Scope):
Vehicle Type: Speeder Truck/Repulsortank
Silhouette: 3 (+1)
Hull Trauma Threshold: 10 (+66%)
Maximum Altitude: 10 meters (-50%)
Sensor Range: Close
Crew: One Pilot, one Co-Pilot
Passenger Capacity: 1 (+4 instead of cargo)
Encumbrance Capacity: 40 (+800%)
Customization Hard Points: 9

Landspeeder (Elegant Design):
Vehicle Type: Swoop Bike
Silhouette: 1
Hull Trauma Threshold: 2 (-66%)
Maximum Altitude: 30 meters (+50%)
Sensor Range: Close
Crew: One Pilot
Passenger Capacity: None (-2)
Encumbrance Capacity: None (-5)
Customization Hard Points: 7 (-1)
(Optional: Frame Cost: 250 [-50%])
Notes: Basically a landspeeder-sized engine with a seat strapped to it. Very compact and powerful, but only good for racing.


Airspeeder (Larger Scope):
Vehicle Type: Airspeeder
Silhouette: 3
Hull Trauma Threshold: 8 (+60%)
Maximum Altitude: 100 kilometers
Sensor Range: Short
Crew: One Pilot
Passenger Capacity: 8 (+300%) (If this is a military ship, some of those would become crew)
Encumbrance Capacity: 10 (+100%)
Customization Hard Points: 12 (+50%)
(Optional: Frame Cost: 4,000 [+300%])

Airspeeder (Elegant Design):
No, not doing a sil 1 airspeeder. Sil 1 landspeeder was pushing it.


Walker (Larger Scope):
Vehicle Type: Heavy Walker
Silhouette: 4 (+1)
Hull Trauma Threshold: 30 (+100%)
Sensor Range: Short (+1)
Crew: One Pilot, one Co-Pilot, one Commander (+2)
Passenger Capacity: 20 (+20)
Encumbrance Capacity: 20 (+18)
Customization Hard Points: 14 (+~50%)
(Optional: Frame Cost: 20,000 [+300%])

Walker (Elegant Design):
Vehicle Type: Light Walker
Silhouette: 2 (-1)
Hull Trauma Threshold: 7 (-~50%)
Sensor Range: None (-1)
Crew: One Pilot
Passenger Capacity: None
Encumbrance Capacity: 2
Customization Hard Points: 7
(Optional: Frame Cost: 2,500 [-50%])

That’s probably all I’m going to do. The more I look at the starship/vehicle crafting rules, the less I want to be anywhere near them. They are really terribly thought-out and executed.

I’ll do more on request, but that’s all I’m volunteering for.



I am still very new to all this, are the vehicle/starship construction and modification rules spread out over multiple source books and require pencil, paper, and a calculator to use, or has someone already created a program, app, or spreadsheet that consolidates all that information and does the math for you?

They are only found in Fully Operational (the AoR sourcebook for Engineers), and require pen and paper. Calculator is purely optional, and generally unnecessary.

I don’t think anyone has created a program, app, etc. but all the information is consolidated in the single source.

The math is pretty simple, it’s just addition (four numbers, to be precise) unless you’re modding the components. That’s one of my problems with it, actually.

Also I believe EliasWindrider had a pretty complex project about starship crafting? But that’s homebrew territory.

Correct. Nubian Design Collective Vehicle Crafting Handbook, if I remember correctly. NDCVCH for short. :D

1 Like

Yes, that’s it. I can’t comment on the content and precision of it, but it’s useful, compact and contains everything you need. I found it handy since I don’t have the Technician sourcebook.

Quick one today:
Maintenance Droid (AoR CRB/EotE CRB).
Priced at 7,500, which is incredibly high for a minion with 1 in all Characteristics and only Mechanics as a group skill.
However, each comes fully equipped with tools.

For contrast, a DUM-Series Pit Droid has a cost of 450 and although it has a slightly lower Characteristic spread (with 0 in Int and Cun), it has two extra group skills and a couple other bonuses.

Fix: Decrease the cost of the Maintenance Droid to 750.



Currently, this does virtually nothing. The only person I knew to use it was a Chadra-Fan with a ridiculously oversized custom heavy blaster rifle.
For almost everyone, a Weapon Sling is enough. If it isn’t, a Tripod is likely necessary, and there’s always the alternative of a Weapon Harness. Yes, it’s more expensive, but it also doesn’t take a Maneuver to brace it.

The catch with “fixing” it is to not make its usefulness outstrip its low cost. However, considering its drawbacks (+1 Encumbrance, 1 HP), that gives us a little bit more flexibility, especially if we make it a Mod Option.

Fix: Change Modification Options to: “1 When taking a Maneuver to aim the weapon, reduce Strain cost by 1 to a minimum of 1 mod.”

Yes, “aim” is intentionally broad here. Not only would it include “Aiming” but also talents like Precise Aim or True Aim. If there are anything I’m not thinking of that shouldn’t count, please let me know.


Oh, that bugged me since forever! Nice

Try the nubian design collective’s whole vehicle crafting handbook, it’s intended to be the minimum departure from RAW that reproduces 95% of official ships with a 95% or better quality match. It also let’s you create completely new ships that are comparable in power level to official ships. There’s a thread for it in this forums and a link to it in my profile.

1 Like

Nubian Design Collective’s WHOLE Vehicle Crafting handbook.

The thread is here

What about the Fusion Cutter? Breach 1, Sunder, Burn & Vicious 3, but no downside for using the tool as a weapon.

1 Like

The stats make sense for some practical reasons, but not one whit for game balance.

There is literally no counter-balancing mechanical concern, as the price is negligible and the encumbrance minor. The stats place it above a vibro-ax for damage potential, especially against more well-armored targets.

My balance suggestions:
As a tool, it’s balanced. It’s one of those “Right Tool for the Job” items that can grant a Boost under the right conditions.
The issue is the attack profile.
I have two suggestions:

  1. Reduce Base Damage to 0 and Crit to 2.
  2. OR replace Breach 1 with Pierce 4 and remove Burn.
  3. AND add “When used as a weapon, one Threat may be spent to damage the Fusion Cutter one step.”

The Fusion Cutter isn’t really a blow torch, although it has similar qualities. One of the most important things to consider is that it’s a pretty small “fire blade.” If I were statting it, I might not even make it usable as a weapon for this and a couple other reasons, one being the seeming fragility of the “point” of the weapon (see 3).
To this end, either reducing the weapon’s ability to ignore Soak (it’s short, it can’t go through as much), or damage (it doesn’t cleave flesh from bone, but it can do serious damage in the right spot) would seem appropriate.

My preferred course is to set the damage to 0. Because of Breach, it’ll do damage against non-Cortosis targets, but the damage is solely reliant on the skill of the user. What it’s useful for is strong crits. The drawback is that given the delicate emitter, it can be very easily damaged into non-usefulness.

I believe that this is both justified by the narrative and the mechanics, to limit the potency of such a cheap weapon.

I like this idea, especially #3. We were thinking Inaccurate 3 but that doesn’t capture the same risk of using as Threat to damage, and swingy damage 0.

Why 1 Threat and not 2? Will very easily get damaged. But yes, it’s only 175, so have to make them feel the pain.

1 Threat because that makes it much more likely to happen. But as GM, you don’t have to spend the Threat that way unless you want to.

The “bit” is very slender, and since it isn’t made to actually drill into anything, I don’t think it would be hard to snap. If you use power drills or have been around anyone who uses them, you likely know how easy it is for really thin bits to break. Now picture a hollow “bit” that you’re swinging around and using like a weapon. Even if it doesn’t snap, it may well bend.
(That’s if you don’t handle the fusion cutter precisely and actually strike it on something)

It’s NOT a weapon, and not designed to be used as one. For the cheap cost and dangerous potential, the chance for the weapon to fail do to misuse seems appropriate to me.


What about there is no value to retain Burn with damage 0, since it causes “base damage” for rounds. Should you boost the damage, or just drop Burn? Burn 1 doesn’t really do much since it is subject to soak.

I think Damage 0 closely reflects that you need to hold a torch over the same point for a while to cause significant damage.

Oh, I forgot that Burn was strictly base damage, unlike Blast which adds Success. In that case, it should either be dropped altogether as it (obviously) does nothing.
Now, if Breach applies to Burn, then damage could be increased to 1, and a successful Burn would deal a total of 3 Wounds (assuming it isn’t put out). However, I don’t think it does apply, even if the book doesn’t outright say that. If it did, then you’d be looking at 15 Wounds from the weapon as originally written, for a total of ~22 Wounds on the single check, on par with a Thermal Detonator.

Final version, pending further feedback:
Reduce Base Damage to 0 and Crit to 2, remove Burn. Add “When used as a weapon, one Threat may be spent to damage the Fusion Cutter one step and Despair may be spent to damage it three steps, which can potentially take it from undamaged to unusable in one result, or from minor damage to destroyed.”

1 Like