| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bren wrote: | On page 59 of Gry Sarths Weapons book there are five disrupter's listed. There are five disruptors listed. Three of them: Merr-Sonn MSD-32 Disruptor Pistol, MSD-36 Disruptor Pistol, and Standard Distruptor Pistol list the weapon type as "Anti-personnel weapon."
One could infer this means that the weapon works best against unarmored targets or alternately that it somehow ignores armor to target the living targets inside. |
One may infer all one wishes, but the original stats on the disruptor pistol state that it causes matter to violently disintegrate. It does not make a distinction between different types of matter.
| Quote: | | In which case it would be ineffective or less effective against droids or equipment. |
Exactly. In Gundark's Fantastic Technology: Personal Equipment, one of the comments made about the Disruptor Pistol is that the character in question likes to carry one not for use against an actual person, but he likes to use it to destroy a droid or a rock in spectacular fashion to let others know that he means business.
| Quote: | | I'm not really proposing anything here as I am happy with my own house rule that disruptors damage is more difficult to heal, but I thought I would point it out for those wanting to support their own preference. |
Your version makes sense, although it could be argued that you take more time to heal simply because the disruptor inflicts greater damage (i.e. according to the RAW, it takes more time to heal from being Incapacitated or Mortally Wounded than it does from just being Wounded).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I suppose I would ask you the source of the stats on the DXR-6, because those are ridiculously low. IIRC, the DXR-6 was the sniper weapon used in Jedi Outcast. It could hit at extreme ranges and could charge up its shots to the level of completely disintegrating a character-scale target. Whoever wrote up these stats clearly had no idea what he was writing them up for. |
I wouldn't be basing the stats of a PC game. IIRC gry's book retrograded it from WOTC's stats in some d20 guide.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately, if that's so, then the D20 stats took a weapon that actually lived up to the implied reputation of a disruptor weapon and turned it into a really $hitty blaster rifle. I think I'll stick with the video game interpretation on this one.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | One may infer all one wishes, but the original stats on the disruptor pistol state that it causes matter to violently disintegrate. It does not make a distinction between different types of matter. |
Phrases like "one may infer all one wishes" seem designed to inflame or to move the discussion in the direction of a personal attack rather than a substantive discussion. Is that your desire?
I might note in turn that concluding that the phrase "causes matter to violently disintegrate" precludes a disruptor from either ignoring or bypassing armor and from doing more damage to a living target than to a nonliving is a conclusion. Given your assumptions it is perhaps a reasonable one, but you are making an inference to reach that conclusion; it is not something explicitly spelled on in the text. How do you rationalize the type description of "anti-personal" contained in the majority of the disruptor descriptions with your belief that the effect is the same for armor and persons? Antipersonnel generally means more effective against persons than structures, armor, or equipment.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | In which case it would be ineffective or less effective against droids or equipment. |
Exactly. In Gundark's Fantastic Technology: Personal Equipment, one of the comments made about the Disruptor Pistol is that the character in question likes to carry one not for use against an actual person, but he likes to use it to destroy a droid or a rock in spectacular fashion to let others know that he means business. |
| Quote: | | Well, with regards to the DXR-6, I would certainly dispute the accuracy o the stats. Having played the game where they were first introduced, I can assure you that the maximum range is far greater than 7 meters. 5D+2 may be relatively impressive, but the stats as shown do not reflect the DXR-6's ability to charge a shot to the point where it can completely disintegrate a human target. |
You appear to be using game design stats when they support your POV and ignoring them when they conflict. That makes me suspect you have an agenda aside from making disruptor stats consistent with the original description in the old Han Solo novels and with the fact that they are more illegal and difficult to obtain than blasters. Which I think was the original posters question.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I'm not really proposing anything here as I am happy with my own house rule that disruptors damage is more difficult to heal, but I thought I would point it out for those wanting to support their own preference. |
| Quote: | | Your version makes sense, although it could be argued that you take more time to heal simply because the disruptor inflicts greater damage (i.e. according to the RAW, it takes more time to heal from being Incapacitated or Mortally Wounded than it does from just being Wounded). |
|
But slower healing is not related to the weapon type, but to the damage and as others have pointed out previously distruptors don't inflict much more damage than many blasters, but about the same damage as many heavy blaster pistols or blaster rifles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Phrases like "one may infer all one wishes" seem designed to inflame or to move the discussion in the direction of a personal attack rather than a substantive discussion. Is that your desire? |
It is my intent to make the distinction between a statement of in-game fact and inference supported by supposition. The description of a disruptor is quite specific: "Any matter subjected to a disruptor is quickly and violently disintegrated." Not some. Any. Meaning, all types of matter. Including body armor.
| Quote: | | I might note in turn that concluding that the phrase "causes matter to violently disintegrate" precludes a disruptor from either ignoring or bypassing armor and from doing more damage to a living target than to a nonliving is a conclusion. Given your assumptions it is perhaps a reasonable one, but you are making an inference to reach that conclusion; it is not something explicitly spelled on in the text. How do you rationalize the type description of "anti-personal" contained in the majority of the disruptor descriptions with your belief that the effect is the same for armor and persons? Antipersonnel generally means more effective against persons than structures, armor, or equipment. |
I would say that, when compared to the SW equivalent of a modern pistol (3D damage), 6D+2 is probably pretty good when used against personnel. However, that does not mean that it can't be used against other things.
| Quote: | | You appear to be using game design stats when they support your POV and ignoring them when they conflict. That makes me suspect you have an agenda aside from making disruptor stats consistent with the original description in the old Han Solo novels and with the fact that they are more illegal and difficult to obtain than blasters. |
I do not consider homebrew stats relevant evidence, just official stats. My primary issue with the DXR-6 stats as written (aside from the fact that they are homebrew and not official) is that they do not reflect what the weapon is supposed to be truly capable of. I am basing part of my argument on the official stat for the Disruptor Pistol, the key word being official. While the Stat Compilations are comprehensive, and contain official stats, that does not make all of their stats official. Some are obvious original material, while others are D20 conversions. I have no idea at what point the DXR-6 was dumbed down to an oversized heavy blaster pistol, but it bears little resemblance to the sniper weapon featured in Jedi Outcast. The range needs to be much longer (possibly due to the use of needle-beam technology, also first mentioned in the Han Solo trilogy), and it needs to have the ability to charge up a shot. If WOTC ignored that in the conversion, then they screwed up, and if whoever did the conversion from WOTC stats ignored it, then they screwed up.
| Quote: | | But slower healing is not related to the weapon type, but to the damage and as others have pointed out previously distruptors don't inflict much more damage than many blasters, but about the same damage as many heavy blaster pistols or blaster rifles. |
At 6D+2, a disruptor pistol inflicts more damage than all but the heaviest of the heavy blaster pistols. It even exceeds the damage of blaster rifles and some repeating blasters. All this from a sidearm that you can carry in a belt holster. This gun can drop the average Wookiee with one shot. Why does it need to be better than it is? On a damage roll, compared to a heavy blaster pistol, a disruptor will inflict 5-6 points more damage on average. Each "slot" on the damage chart takes up about 4 points, so you are looking at an increase of 1-2 levels in damage. That means that, if a character is hit by a heavy blaster pistol and is Wounded, that same character being hit by a disruptor (all other rolls being equal), said character is now Incapacitated at the very least. Wounded requires 3 days before you can make a natural healing roll, while Incapacitated makes you wait 2 weeks. Medpacs heal instantly on a successful use, so there is no increased healing time involved, but bacta tanks require similar increased healing time.
Bottom line, with the basic Disruptor Pistol, you have a short ranged weapon with limited ammunition, but also one that packs a major punch and can be concealed under clothing and drawn quickly. It's nicely balanced as is; why do we need more?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yasriia
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's interesting, that everyone told how they will treat the disruptorweapons. But not you crmcneill. No offense, but some may call it trolling.
I think, now I know how to handle disruptors and sonic weapons. I'm not interested in a technobabble discussion with no result how to handle the rules or how to make up some houserules.
And if someone wants to use a disruptorrifle with a charge-up mode, maybe he can create some stats by his own or he'll look at the homebrew stat-book and the Tenloss DFT-3 Disruptor Rifle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am discussing the WEG stats for disrupters, I listed the models and the location, available to all, where they are found. I have no idea of the source for the DRX stats aside from what is in Gry's book. The picture looks like something from a video game not the WWII-esque types of weapons we see in the OT.
| Quote: | | It is my intent to make the distinction between a statement of in-game fact and inference supported by supposition. The description of a disruptor is quite specific: "Any matter subjected to a disruptor is quickly and violently disintegrated." Not some. Any. Meaning, all types of matter. Including body armor. |
And if we take this statement at face value the damage should be something less than infinite, but far higher than 6D+2. More like a lightsaber in the hands of a master jedi. So either the statement is hyperbole or the damage is too low. That is exactly the point everyone else has been making.
| Quote: | | I would say that, when compared to the SW equivalent of a modern pistol (3D damage), 6D+2 is probably pretty good when used against personnel. |
But the book does not compare a disrupter to a 9mm revolver. It compares it to blasters such as Han Solo's heavy blaster pistol (5D).
| Quote: | | I do not consider homebrew stats relevant evidence, just official stats. |
Nor do I. Nor do I consider weapons derived from video games by D20/SAGA or homebrew to be in any way official nor do I see them as countering the description of the fearsome pistol disruptor used by the reptilian gunman in the Han Solo novel.
| Quote: | | It's nicely balanced as is; why do we need more? |
I thought that was self-evident. The consensus of the posts do not agree with you. That's why those postersfeel they need more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I am discussing the WEG stats for disrupters, I listed the models and the location, available to all, where they are found. I have no idea of the source for the DRX stats aside from what is in Gry's book. The picture looks like something from a video game not the WWII-esque types of weapons we see in the OT. |
The Tenloss DX-2 and DXR-6 were originally found in one of the Essential Guide books published by LucasArts, and were subsequently incorporated into WOTC's material. If you go back and re-read the descriptions in WOTC's Arms & Equipment Guide, you'll find that WOTC are the ones who dumbed down the stats, making disruptors anemic compared to the original model. This flaw was likely perpetuated by a stat conversion that just ran the numbers through the formula without stopping to consider why a weapon that was fearsome for inflicting massive damage only inflicted 4D.
The Tenloss DFT-3 is more in keeping with the sniper weapon I described, even though the write-up has some holes. The stats in the Weapon Stats compilation have no source listed, so I can only assume that someone wrote up the stats based on their own experience from using the weapon while playing Jedi Outcast. Wookieepedia, however, has the DFT-3 and the DXR-6 described as different models of the same weapon, even though no source actually supports that.
What remains are the official stats; the Merr-Sonn MSD-32 & MSD-36, and the original Standard Disruptor (which inflicts the most damage). The only real advantages offered by the Merr-Sonn models is increased ammo capacity (and increased fire rate for the MSD-32), but at greatly increased cost. WEG has published stats for variations on blasters by company, and some are obviously better than others. If the Standard Disruptor is "standard", then I would say that the Merr-Sonn models are "sub-standard." If my character was unarmed and had to choose between a Merr-Sonn disruptor and a rock, he'd pick the disruptor, but given a choice between the Merr-Sonn models and the Standard Disruptor, he'd go with the Standard. Just like in real life, you don't always have your personal favorite available, and you have to make do with whatever you find just lying around.
Personally, I've never played a character who had a disruptor as his only weapon; it's too specialized. If I want a weapon with more ammo and greater range, I use a blaster pistol or a heavy blaster pistol. A disruptor with lower damage and higher ammo just doesn't match up to a blaster pistol. The only real advantage to a disruptor is its massive damage capacity per shot, which makes it useful for knocking down doors or taking out oncoming speeders and Wookiees. For everything else, there's Blastercard.
For their Arms & Equipment Guide, WOTC took the weakest of the WEG stat disruptors (the MSD-32) and offered it up as the pinnacle of disruptor technology, superior in damage capacity to the DX-2 and the DXR-6. It's reasonable to assume that whoever did the stat conversion looked at the stats for the MSD-32 and used it as a benchmark for the DX-2/DXR-6 conversion, without considering the fact that the resulting stats were a weapon that no one would really want. The end result is a pair of weapons that would be just as effective if you were to throw it at your opponent in an attempt to bean him in the head with it as opposed to aiming it and shooting it at him.
I've never been a huge fan of WOTC's system, and have always considered their stats to be "more like guidelines than actual rules." For me, a quicker and easier fix would be to bump the DX-2's damage up to 7D and the DXR-6's up to 8D. I'd also give the DXR-6 increased range (while the D20 range increment for disruptors is 2 meters, the DXR-6 is the only one that isn't capped at 3-4 increments). This puts both weapons more in line with the original intent. I really don't care if it goes against what WOTC wrote up; I play D6, not D20.
Another possible suggestion for disruptors is the power-up ability of the DFt-3. Uul-Rha-Shan was not the only character to use a disruptor in Han Solo at Star's End. During the escape from the Espo Data Facility, Rekkon wielded a disruptor pistol that he used to take out an armored police vehicle in spectacular fashion. He set the weapon to "overload" and fired a single massive shot that drained the disruptor's entire power pack. The weapon was drained and useless, but it took out the pursuing vehicle. Combined with the shot-charging ability of the DFT-3, there is sufficient evidence to say that disruptors can "charge up" their damage level by using multiple ammo charges simultaneously in a single shot.
| Quote: | | And if we take this statement at face value the damage should be something less than infinite, but far higher than 6D+2. More like a lightsaber in the hands of a master jedi. So either the statement is hyperbole or the damage is too low. That is exactly the point everyone else has been making. |
Basically, you're taking my statement about the effect of disruptors in isolation and inferring that a blast from a disruptor's weapon would just keep on going and wipe out anything it touches, like a hand-held superlaser or something. Just because I didn't mention aspects like power output and blast ablation does not mean they aren't still factors. Whether a disruptor fires a blast of anti-protons or uses WOTC's more mundane concept of non-harmonic vibrations, any contact with matter will have a reciprocal effect on the power of the beam itself. If the beam has to disrupt its way through a layer of body armor, it has more than enough power to do so, but it will burn up some of its energy in the process, which means that there will be less energy available to inflict actual damage on the character inside the armor. In that sense, armor would function just the same against disruptors as it does against blasters and other firearms, by absorbing a portion of the damage to protect the person inside the armor.
| Quote: | | But the book does not compare a disrupter to a 9mm revolver. It compares it to blasters such as Han Solo's heavy blaster pistol (5D). |
As did I, in the example presented in my previous post. In either case, the standard disruptor (the only one worth having, based on the existing stats), inflicts more damage than both, and is therefore better against personnel than either weapon. In fact, the most obvious combat usage of a disruptor is against a vehicle, not a person. If a disruptor ignores armor, how then do we calculate its effect on vehicles, where the armor is integrated into the Hull Strength code? How do we even justify it having an effect on vehicles, if it is only an "anti-personnel" weapon? After all, a vehicle is composed mostly of hard metals, ceramics, composites and a variety of other inorganic materials, just like armor. If a disruptor beam ignores armor, does that mean it passes harmlessly through a vehicle to inflict full damage on the characters using the vehicle for cover? That's not something backed up by the stats or by the description of the weapon's use in the SWU; a disruptor blast was described three times in any kind of detail, once against a vehicle, once against a wall and the Star's End control circuitry behind it, and once against a droid. For an anti-personnel weapon, it seems to be pretty effective against things other than personnel.
Personally, I consider the "anti-personnel weapon" to be an editing error. Every blaster pistol stat I have seen lists the type as "Blaster Pistol", Heavy Blaster Pistols as "Heavy Blaster Pistols", and so on. The stat type line may say "anti-personnel weapon", but nowhere in either the write-up or the stats or the source material does it give any indication that the weapon is better against one type of matter over another.
| Quote: | | Nor do I. Nor do I consider weapons derived from video games by D20/SAGA or homebrew to be in any way official nor do I see them as countering the description of the fearsome pistol disruptor used by the reptilian gunman in the Han Solo novel. |
I agree up to a point. The DFT-3 used as a sniper weapon is pretty fearsome in its own right. The level in which is is introduced is a wide open gallery of catwalks and balconies littered with snipers wielding these weapons. At close range, the DFT-3 is pretty anemic, but it comes into its own if you can use the scope and charge up the shot. The only way to beat the level is to dash from one piece of cover to the next and hope that there isn't some sniper hiding out at some angle above or behind you, because if you stay in one place too long, you get hit with a full-power blast that takes out ALL your health and armor and completely disintegrates you. Very nasty weapon.
As for the others, I made my suggestions up above. Just because WOTC made disruptors suck doesn't mean we have to stick with their stats. Use the WOTC stats as guidelines, and where there is conflict, overrule WOTC in favor of WEG. Why introduce rules that complicate the issue when you can just tack on an extra D or 2 of damage and achieve the intended effect?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The proverbial beard is groving... 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps to simulate that 'charging up' you can have it where 1 shot on target is standard damage. 2 shots add 1 to the damage roll (only 1 shot rolled though). 3 shots on target (one roll to hit) adds 1d.. and increase it from there like fire linked weaponry.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Perhaps to simulate that 'charging up' you can have it where 1 shot on target is standard damage. 2 shots add 1 to the damage roll (only 1 shot rolled though). 3 shots on target (one roll to hit) adds 1d.. and increase it from there like fire linked weaponry. |
I was thinking more along the lines of every additional shot adds 1D to the damage roll, but also increases the chance of an explosive burn-out from overloading the weapon. Say a disruptor has an ammo of 5 with a base damage of 6D+2, and the gunner decides to shoot off everything in one mega-blast. He gets a base of 6D+2 to damage, plus a bonus of +4D for the additional charges. However, each bonus D counts as a Wild Dice Failure, with cumulative effects:
1 WDF - Weapon fires normally, but overheats and requires 1D rounds to cool down before it can be used again
2 WDF- Weapon fires normally, but burns out and must be repaired before it can be fired again.
3 or more WDF- Weapon detonates on discharge, inflicting full damage to the gunner, and half damage to anyone standing within 2 meters.
Basically, when firing the gun, roll the normal 6D+2 for damage, then roll the bonus dice separately for however many charges the gunner is using. Total up all the 1 results and apply the total to the above table for the result.
Example: Rekkon is armed with a standard disruptor pistol and shooting at an oncoming Espo patrol skimmer. He braces himself and takes careful aim (maybe spending a FP or CP) and charges up his disruptor pistol to fire off all five shots at once. He succeeds on his To Hit roll, then rolls 6D+2 for a damage result of 25. He then rolls an additional 4D for the four additional shots he using to charge up the shot. On 4D, he gets a 3, a 5, and two 1's, which brings his damage up to 35. The speeder takes a disabling hit and crashes, but the Espos inside are unharmed. Unfortunately, because of the two 1 results on the bonus dice, Rekkon's disruptor is now damaged and requires repair before it can be used again.
EDIT: The rifles, on the other hand, would have sufficiently well designed systems that they could take the charge-up with either minimal risk or no risk at all (as there was no effect like this with the sniper rifle in JK2)
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yasriia wrote: | | I think, now I know how to handle disruptors... |
Me too.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like that adendum.. though i see 4d bonus as being a little much..
What range would you change the rifle to?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | I like that adendum.. though i see 4d bonus as being a little much.. |
Yeah, it's a bit much, but if the scenario in Han Solo at Star's End is accurate, the disruptor has to be able to put enough of a punch into its shot to be able to disable an armored speeder, but not totally destroy it. I'm not sure exactly what the hull rating would be on the speeder in question, but the text did say that Rekkon basically burned the entire power pack in one shot. For a disruptor with more than five shots in the clip, I would probably cap the power-up function at +4D.
| Quote: | | What range would you change the rifle to? |
I hadn't really put a lot of thought into it, but considering it has the same range increments as the pistols in the D20 rules, it wouldn't be a huge increase. Maybe something like 3-7/10/15? I picture a disruptor rifle being used like a shotgun for for CQB.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yasriia
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, the overload-mechanic sounds like jury-rigging on the fly. Very Interesting.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
