So, in this thread I hope to put in some stuff based on new info about things or my personal interpretations of what I see. Not a whole lot else, just looking for feedback and such.
Quite frankly I have loads of houserules and other junk I’ve been building up over the campaign prep and I just want a place to put it and get it peer reviewed.
Revised Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (P-47’s Starship Rules, so many thanks!)
Silhouette 8 | Speed 2 | Handling -3
Armor 10 | Shielding 3/3/3/2 | Defense 0/0/0/0
Hull Trauma 145 | System Strain 60
(All the fill-in as usual)
Weapons:
Primary Turbolaser Battery (Fire Arc Forward, Port and Starboard, 11/3/Long/Battery 5, Breach 4, Slow-Firing 1)
Secondary Turbolaser Batteries (Fire Arc Forward, Port and Starboard, 9/3/Medium/Battery 6, Breach 2)
Ion Cannon Batteries (Fire Arc Forward, Port and Starboard, 8/4/Medium/Battery 6, Ion)
Tractor Beam Projectors (Fire Arc Forward, Port and Starboard, -/-/Shot/Battery 1, Tractor 6)
Special: Massive 2, Engine Bank 2 (Can go up to three times it’s maximum speed; each speed over maximum takes up two maneuvers in one round, at speed 4, always fails non-chase piloting checks, at speed 6, cannot meaningfully change course)
Basically the firepower is based on the current Wookieepedia listed guns, and the speed thing was based on the fact that it’s repeatedly implied if not explicitly stated that almost nothing can outrun a Star Destroyer with sublights.
I compensated for slow-firing by dividing the battery rating on the secondary weapons (the primaries, I figured did that Venator thing where they overcharged them to crank up the fire rate)
You still have Slow-Firing on the Primary Turbolaser Battery. Is that intentional? From what you said, it sounded like you were removing Slow-Firing.
Engine Bank is an interesting ability. The two Maneuvers in one round isn’t possible for a Star Destroyer in either my houserules or the RAW, though. As for the narrative of it, I get trying to match the lines you hear from Han Solo and others, but from what we see of Star Destroyers in the media, they aren’t all that fast. A better way to understand the lines might be to describe it as outrunning a Star Destroyer’s effective reach—between long-range turbolasers, starfighter complement, and tractor beams, it’s hard to move far enough, quickly enough, to keep it from getting to you.
It is worth noting that compared to other capital ships, they’re of a good speed. Only a few ships of silhouette 7+ are capable of speeds above 2, meaning in a straight run, few capital ships can escape an ISD.
I’m really happy you like my starship rules! I put a lot of work into them, so it’s rewarding to see other people enjoying them.
I would dispute seeing it as not fast in the media for two reasons:
One, in ESB, we can see one keeping pace with the Falcon (which FFG gave a speed of 5); Two, in Tarkin, a deck officer says “They haven’t made a freighter that can outrun an Imperial Star Destroyer” and backs it up by chasing down a hot-rodded YT freighter (presumably speed 4).
Also, I can adjust the maneuver cost. The point is that you’re mostly correct, so I figured that a Star Destroyer mostly keeps to a safe output level, but kicks the engines into gear when it needs to run something down, with the downside that maneuvering is next to impossible - hence why the crew of a Star Destroyer in the hyper-elite Death Squadron was able to get tricked into ramming a fellow ship.
As for the main turbolasers, I figured those were more likely to fire in volleys so I left it on. I removed it on the secondaries because you never see an ISD fire all its weapon in a single volley, instead staggering them.
Weapons Adjustments - Carbines
The big change I made here is that I allow players to use carbines with Ranged (Light) or Ranged (Heavy), because while they are long arms in some senses they’re also usually pistol-gripped in a way that I feel makes them usable to people trained with either. I also (admittedly a bit of a strange position) consider all the following to be basic blaster carbines: DH-17s, E-11s, EE-3s, and some others. The DH-17 mostly based on how you never see it used like a pistol (every time, people put a second hand on the barrel), and because it looks roughly the same size as an E-11, itself way to small to me to be a full rifle. The EE-3 is just because I have never once seen it depicted firing at full auto.
There is already a weapon that lets you do something like this. https://star-wars-rpg-ffg.fandom.com/wiki/A280-CFE_Convertible_Heavy_Blaster_Pistol
There is also an upgrade that can convert a Ranged: Heavy weapon https://star-wars-rpg-ffg.fandom.com/wiki/Pistol_Grip
That’s not quite what I’m going for. Those are convertible blasters, that have a base pistol and detachable rifle parts. What I’m saying is that blaster carbines, from what I can see of every depiction of them, could be used like a pistol or long arm - they’re two-handed weapons, but with a pistol grip. Effectively, I’m acting like all blaster carbines have a pistol grip attachment for free that can be used or not each round.
Funny you should mention the A280CFE, though - another thing I did was create a pair of generic attachments to recreate convertible blasters. Would you mind taking a look? I’d rather not clutter this up unless someone’ll look.
There was a new rule introduced in Force and Destiny that allowed Blaster Carbines to be fired one-handed (still using Ranged [Heavy]) at Short range. That can be reasonably extended to similar classes of weapon, I think.
However, given the wide range of weapons classified as carbines, I would hesitate it make it that easily swapped—especially since there are weapons that already convert, such as the mentioned A280-CFE as well as the DR-45 Dragoon.
See, the way I look at it is that if a pistol grip lets you use something with Ranged (Light) but two-handed, then I figure that most carbines are like that - I haven’t seen a single one that doesn’t have a pistol grip. The idea is that since the weapon itself is very in-between, you can use either skill effectively - like how some people use a DH-17 with two hands on the grip, like one would an especially heavy pistol, while others place the second hand on the barrel, more like a rifle. As for those, my distinction is that those are convertible weapons (using attachments to go between sidearm and dedicated long arm), while carbines are more of weird in-betweens.
I just remembered my other reason - carbines are supposedly better for close ranges, and Ranged (Light) has a lower engaged-range penalty, so it actually helps make that piece of fluff work too.
I have my own, separate rules for genericizing convertible blasters, by the way, which I’d be glad to share.
This is where we get into questions of mechanics and game balance.
Currently, you have Ranged (Light) pistols, which are smaller and have lower damage. Then you have Ranged (Heavy) carbines, which are lightweight, but do more damage than pistols, and then you have Ranged (Heavy) rifles, which are heavy and do high damage. If you make it possible to use all carbines with Ranged (Light) by default, they become better pistols—longer ranged, higher damage, just as easy to use.
Secondly, the Pistol Grip attachment does not represent a “pistol grip” feature on a weapon. Otherwise, it apply to a great many weapons that are depicted as having a pistol-style grip. The attachment instead represents modifications made to a weapon that permit it to be fired one-handed. I’m splitting hairs here, but I’m doing it for a reason. The name is meant to represent the mechanics, not the mechanics to represent the name.
Additionally, it’s important to consider that using one hand or Ranged (Light) for carbines already exists in-game in two ways: The generic Blaster Carbine, which is one-handed (but still Ranged [Heavy]) and limited to Short, and the Pistol Grip, which is Ranged (Light), but with a Setback for using one hand, a range limited to Medium, and a 1 HP requirement. Making the skills interchangeable is significantly stronger than both of these RAW features.
Finally, Ranged (Light) vs. Ranged (Heavy) is not a simple question of one hand versus two hands. Ranged (Heavy) weapons are larger, more unwieldy, have a longer sight radius, and just generally handle differently. Even when handling a carbine one-handed, the weapon you’re handling will still handle like a carbine—that is, a Ranged (Heavy) weapon. The “is-it-a-pistol-or-a-carbine” weapons like the DH-17, I would handle like generic Blaster Carbines, or if a player asked, I might treat them like they had the Pistol Grip attachment built-in. Generally speaking, however, I strongly believe that carbines at large should remain Ranged (Heavy) weapons.
I’m aware that the distinction is not one of how many hands, but of how it’s used and, to an extent, shaped. What I’m trying (and failing) to say is that, just from what I can see of it, the blaster carbines we have seem to have much in common with both conventional Ranged (Light) and (Heavy) weapons. Their small size - and often their build - makes it so that they almost seem to be Ranged (Light) - small, compact, shorter-barreled and braced only with the hands (i.e., too short behind the grip to be shoulder-fired), but at the same time they are long enough to be fired with a hand position more akin to that used with rifles. I suppose that that idea at the end - treating it like a built-in pistol grip - is essentially my idea. I am happy to say that yours is better - doing it on a case-by-case basis - and is essentially what I was trying to communicate; after some thought, I am realizing that while DH-17s (and maybe E-11s/DC-15As with how some characters use them) are more Ranged (Light), those like the EE-3 are more solidly Ranged (Heavy).
And overall, thank you for the idea. That’s exactly what I was hoping for when I put this stuff out, peer review and revisions. My idea was something like “they seem sufficiently pistol-like to be used with Ranged (Light) but with two hands” and your idea is definitely an improvement.
You’re welcome! It was a fun conversation.
It’s also worth noting that although the DH-17 variants we have are listed as Ranged (Heavy) carbines, the DH-17 itself is listed as an example of a generic Pistol, which is reflected in Alliance statblocks.
Would you mind peer reviewing my generic convertible blaster stuff? Like A280CFE and DR-45, but it works for any blaster pistol.
In my opinion this is due to the FFG people knowing it’s basically a carbine but not being able to contradict canon sources that say it’s a pistol.
In fact, I figured that if the DH-17C was a shortened, fully automatic version of the DH-17, it would be reasonable to classify it as a repeater pistol like the SE-14C, which I made an averaged profile for since there were way too many separate versions of the same idea.
I’d be happy to, but I don’t know what you’re referring to. Is it something you’ve already posted and I somehow missed it?
No, I was seeing if there was interest. Note: based on advice from a player that I 100% agree with, Ranged (Light) weapons have an additional +1 difficulty to attacks at Long and Extreme Range, because it’s ridiculous to assume that a pistol can hit as well as a long arm at range.
Pistol Stock:
Applicable to any pistol weapon. Allows the wielder to make attacks using the Ranged (Heavy) skill with two hands. 1 Hard Point, no modifications. 100 Credits/3, can be detachable or folding, it makes no statistical difference.
Clip-On Extended Barrel:
Applicable to most pistol weapons; must find a model designed for the pistol used. Attachable as a maneuver; increases range by one band and encumbrance by two. 1 Hard Point (attachment rails), Modification Options: 1x +1 Damage Mod, 1x +1 Pierce Mod, 1x +1 Accurate Mod. 500 Credits/8.
DR-45 Dragoon (Recreated): Works a lot differently, but more balanced and, I feel, closer to the fluff. Blaster Pistol (DD6, judging by fluff, was a basic blaster pistol) with built-in Pistol Stock and Clip-On attachment points. Price was calculated with a formula I came up with for weapons with factory-installed, unremovable attachments.
Pistol: 6; 3; Medium; 1; 1; 1000 Credits/6; Stun Setting
Rifle: 6; 3; Long; 3; 1; 1000 Credits/6; Stun Setting
A280-CFE (Recreated): This one holds a lot closer to the original, with a few exceptions. Note that the Clip-On has all mods applied, and it has a built-in second power pack that removes the “Run out of ammo on three Threat” thing.
Pistol: Heavy Blaster Pistol; 1 Hard Point; 1850 Credits (R)/8
Rifle: 8; 3; Long; 4; 1; 1850 Credits (R)/8; Accurate 1, Pierce 1, Stun Setting
I left the one hard point in (which, in my formula, makes you pay extra) because I assumed that what Cassian had in the movie had a Multi-Optic Sight, which is more expensive than entire weapon is stated to be on Wookieepedia, and that therefore it was an attachment he had made.
From memory, there are only two ways for a Ranged (Light) weapon to reach out to Long or Extreme range: The first is that there are two Long-ranged pistols, the X-30 and DE-10, and the second is Sniper Shot, which upgrades the roll’s Difficulty once per range band. I don’t think that additional rule is necessary because it’s so niche, but I think it actually makes a lot of sense. I was initially going to disagree, but as I thought about it more and went through my arguments, I realized that they cut in favor of your point. The X-30 lacks a proper optic, and while the DE-10 has a native Telescopic Optical Sight, that doesn’t help with weapon stability, only target acquisition. The +1 Difficulty would make the X-30 Daunting at Long, and the DE-10 would be Hard at Long, just like a rifle without a TOS. I don’t intend to implement that change in my games, but for those niche scenarios, it makes a lot of sense.
The Pistol Stock is basically the effect of the DR-45 Dragoon, which I don’t particularly like. On one hand, you have the convenience of skill-switching, but on the other, how often is it actually beneficial to make a Ranged (Light) weapon Ranged (Heavy)? Why not just use Ranged (Heavy)? Couple thoughts for tweaks or changes: Increase weapon encumbrance by 1 and change the effect.
An obvious option to change the effect would be to make it stay Ranged (Light), but remove the penalty for firing at Long range, but that would only affect a very small number of weapons, or the rare character who builds a pistol-reliant sniper. I would instead go with the same approach I used for the DR-45 here P-47’s Fix-It Shop (DR-45) and make the conversion give a Ranged (Light) weapon Ranged (Heavy) and Accurate 1.
Clip-On Barrel, I can’t get behind. Pistols are naturally very short-ranged, and increasing their range can get goofy quickly. Together with your +1 Difficulty houserule, it works okay, but the maneuver to swap feels way too easy to me. I also think it’s too cheap. Encumbrance should probably only increase by 1. Narratively, I think it works, given how blasters work in Star Wars. I’m not sure whether the better approach is to cap the range increase at Medium or at Long, but given that we have precedence for Long-ranged pistols, I think that capping it at Long makes sense.
For the DR-45, just see the link I sent. I prefer it because it makes more of a trade-off.
I think the A280-CFE is good as-written.
A note on encumbrance: Changing the encumbrance of the weapon between different versions is a bit finicky because you still have to have the attachments on your person in order to swap them out, so most of the time it’s better to just wrap the encumbrance together—fewer things to keep track of.
I think you should write up a doc that’s basically a mini-houserule set for convertible pistols. Add in the +1 Difficulty houserule and the mods that let you convert the pistol into a rifle, and we can see where there may be places to expand and flesh it out. Currently, Long-ranged pistols are the nichest of the niche, but your approach will make them more common, which makes the houserule more important. I expect a lot of interdependency between the conversion attachments and the houserule.