d20radio.com

I would definitely rule that if you fall and take no damage from the fall, for any reason, you can be on your feet at the bottom. Using DR 10 to do the "Iron Man" thing is too awesome to say no to!


SWSE Core Rulebook, p255, sidebar:
"If the attack fails, the subject only takes half damage."

You never take NO damage unless you succeed at a check (or have DR ). And since it deals half onna miss, I'd treat that sort of like an area attack and rule that it doesn't double on a crit, a natural 20 is just an auto-hit and nothing more.


Well, it can't miss you and deal no damage. It can only miss and deal half. I agree with applying the general concept of area attacks, so that crits don't double, but it's not an area attack and should not be treated as such. The ground never misses completely, even if it doesn't roll a minimum of 10. On a natural 1, it does SOME damage, and you can't avoid part or all of the damage with Evasion.

Ooh, that's a very good point that I hadn't considered.

Even a miser who loves money and never spends a penny he doesn't have to, has to have a reason for it -- whether it means security (a protection against the effects of an unlucky event), is a symbol of his control (over his own life or others'), or represents his prestige (social standing as determined by wealth), he has some kind of reason to want it...

The Malkite Poisoner Talent Tree...

...It appears in an inset box in Threats of the Galaxy, which has no official errata, and the book does not explicitly associate that Talent Tree with any class. In fact, the ONLY prerequisites to the Talent Tree are internal Talent Tree prerequisites.

To the extent TotG gives ANY hint what class, if any, this Talent Tree is associated with, a statblock next to the inset box has the character built with Malkite Poisoner Talents taken whenever the character selected a Scoundrel Talent.

The only other reference to the Malkite Poisoner Talent Tree is in the Assassin PrC, from Scum and Villainy, which came out some time after Threats of the Galaxy.

...I don't like that fact that this Talent Tree is unattributed to any class under RAW (except, perhaps, Assassin), that there's been no errata, and that the only source explicitly attributing it to the Scoundrel class is hearsay: WotC forum member and d20Radio forum member "RavingDork" indicated in a WotC forums post from three years ago that unwritten clarifications by unnamed devs attributed this Talent Tree to the Scoundrel class. It's not that I don't trust RavingDork ... he's always been a reliable source ... I just don't like the lack of official clarification).

Because of this lack of information, I unwittingly ended up creating a character with no Scoundrel levels, but who has talents from this tree. I treated the Malkite talents like Force Talents, taking them whenever the character was eligible to take a Talent. There is nothing in Threats of the Galaxy prohibiting this. But it seems unbalanced; contrary to the text of the Assassin PrC in Scum and Villany; and, according to RavingDork's hearsay, contrary to developer's intent.

So...how have people handled this Talent Tree? A Scoundrel Tree? An Assassin PrC Talent Tree? A free-for-anybody Talent Tree? An accessible-by-nobody Talent Tree?

It was mentioned in the WotC but the Malkite Poisoner Talent Tree is available to the Assassin PrC which gives it one official home. Now whether or not it also is available to the Scoundrel is another question but consider the following possibilities:

1. ToG was written using things from an under development FUCG and the Assassin in that book had Assassin levels in it. Those levels then needed to be removed for any number of reasons.

2. ToG is just full of stat block errors and this is just another example of one.

3. If it was a "universal" talent tree it should state that somewhere. Although the "Force talents" are universal that is specified in the rules and also has Force Sensitivity as a prereq for any of them.

I suppose I might be okay with it being a "Tradition" talent tree and make it available to characters on a RP basis. That would make scaling the talent tree really easy for the soldier 1 Jedi 1/scoundrel 1 power gamer so I'd probably like to Playtest it a bit before giving players the green light on that!

Otherwise I'm perfectly fine with it being a Scoundrel talent tree, and that's how I've treated it in my games. It's just another CT-killing path and the Scoundrel class has lots of other tasty talents that one misses out on by taking talents in this tree. Furthermore it takes a Standard action at the beginning of combat to apply the poison, and it is only available to non-energy weapons (so no blasters, blastswords or any 3d weapons). Furthermore, the attack of the poison scales with level and only has an attack bonus of +character level (with an optional +2 for the price of a talent). So a moderately high Fort defense (basically your average soldier build) is going to have a pretty easy time resisting this poison.
The low attack bonus, combined with 1d or 2d weapons, combined with the standard action to activate once per encounter, combined with the fact that it eats talents, makes this an effective but definely balanced talent tree for the scoundrel in my humble opinion.

_________________
Saga Edition Resources:
My Google Docs Character Record Sheet
SE Official FAQ Compilation - SE Official Errata & Clarifications - Jedi Counseling 105 to 115

Edge of the Empire Resources: Beta Updates, crib sheets, and other goodies

I have a question about Skill Focus.

Is it a prerequisite to be trained in a skill to learn Skill Focus for that skill? The feat description for Skill Focus does not have a prerequisite entry but the benefit entry does say "You gain a +5 competence bonus on skill checks made with one trained skill of your choice.”

Personally I’ve always ruled that you could only focus in a skill that you are also trained in, but am I wrong? I’m just a little confused

The prerequisite is indeed in the benefit. Perhaps the devs felt it didn't need to be explicitly spelled out in the form of a Prerequisite section, but the benefits are gained for "one trained skill," as you say.

For example: Tim the Jedi takes takes the Skill Focus feat. He wants to gain the bonus in the Cimb skill, but is not trained and therefore cannot gain the benefits for that skill. He chooses instead to Focus in the Acrobatics skill, which he is trained in.

It's as confusing as you make it, I suppose. If you read the feat description all the way through, it's pretty obvious what it's supposed to do. Just because there's no Prerequisite section doesn't mean there's no functional prerequisite.

_________________
Saga Edition Resources:
My Google Docs Character Record Sheet
SE Official FAQ Compilation - SE Official Errata & Clarifications - Jedi Counseling 105 to 115

Edge of the Empire Resources: Beta Updates, crib sheets, and other goodies

As I thought, thank you for clarifying it for me.

I think the thing that confused me was the Darth Vader statblock (core rulebook page 262).
He has a Use the Force check of +17 and Skill Focus (Use the Force). But shouldn’t that give him a +21 Use the Force check?

Half level: 9
Charisma: 15 (+2)
Trained: +5
Focus: +5

9 + 2 + 5 + 5 = 21

I’ve checked the errata and couldn’t find a correction for this.

It looks like you aren't including the penalty to UtF Vader takes for all those cybernetics. I'm AFB, but -4 sounds about right.

_________________
Arkansas Regional Captain & proud member of Spice Runners Squadron
Kessel Base, The Rebel Legion

"The bad guys hardly ever quote Star Wars."
Harry Dresden, Cold Days

Thank you! It makes sense now. 4 cybernetic limbs = -4 UtF. The numbers add up now

You are not required to have a skill trained to take Skill Focus for that skill but in order to actually USE Skill Focus you need to be, or at least count as, trained in that skill. This means you could take Skill Focus in something and then later get the skill trained (maybe you needed to wait for the increased INT modifier) and then have it come online. There are also times you when can count as being trained in a skill (for example Force Persuasion lets you count as being trained in Persuasion) which would then let the +5 come online when you actually roll the skill; you still aren't really 'trained' in the skill so I don't believe you should get the +5 that normally comes with that however.

As for Vader's stat block you need to remember there is a big penalty for all the cybernetics. I also believe there are a few other mistakes in the stat blocks for various characters.

Ah, an important distinction. Yes, that would also work. A concrete reminder of Saga Edition's retroactive-friendly systems.

Huh. I never thought of that. Lots of talents/feats like that have a "considered trained in X skill for the purposes of this talent/feat" qualifier, so obviously even RAW those couldn't be considered, but that's a very interesting loophole-type-thing to think about for the talents/feats that don't have that "for the purposes of this feat/talent" qualifier.

_________________
Saga Edition Resources:
My Google Docs Character Record Sheet
SE Official FAQ Compilation - SE Official Errata & Clarifications - Jedi Counseling 105 to 115

Edge of the Empire Resources: Beta Updates, crib sheets, and other goodies

Hmmm.

Actually I guess if you had a Skill Focus (X) and were untrained in X but had a talent that let you roll Y instead, I'd allow the skill focus to apply when you roll Y in place of X. This would be exceedingly rare; the only way I can see it coming up is if you had a racial trait that granted free skill focus and you don't have that skill trained, but do have a replacement talent. If you were taking the skill focus with a character resource, you'd be better off taking Skill Focus in Y, where it would apply to all your Y rolls as well as all your Y-in-place-of-X rolls.

The "treated as trained" just means you can perform trained-only applications of the original skill, but roll the replacement skill. You still roll the replacement skill as whatever it is. If you somehow got a "roll X instead of Y" without being trained in X, you would not suddenly gain the +5 when using that replacement. (However I think these replacement abilities always require you to be trained in X anyway, so it doesn't really matter.)

Yeah, I was thinking about this last night. Say you had a Fallanasi noble PC with the White Current Adept talent. Skill Focus (Use the Force) and Charisma up the wazoo. Very very good at Force-stealthiness, but as a leader-y noble character she doesn't even have the actual Stealth skill trained. Still, any Stealth checks she performs (whether substituted with Use the Force or not) are considered trained.
She wants to take levels in the Infiltrator PrC, so at noble 6 she takes the Skill Focus (Stealth) feat, thereby qualifying for the Infiltrator.
At this point, yeah, I would totally let the Fallanasi make normal Stealth checks with the +5 competence bonus (as opposed to UtF checks):

1) It's RAW, so I don't have to change anything in the rules.
2) She already has a better UtF modifier, so I'm not going to punish her for choosing not to Use the Force in a situation where she can't or shouldn't (say against the Yuuzhan Vong—I know, Stealth checks don't target Will Def, but still—or on the planet Myrkyr).
3) It's a two-element combo (one talent, one feat) and it is totally not game breaking in any way.

Roleplaying-wise, the Fallanasi noble has spent so much time leading her people in hiding that she knows a thing or two about staying hidden even without the Force's aid. So when she applies herself to learn, she can pick up advanced training in the skill but still not be on par physically with the battle-hardened sniper who trained her.

_________________
Saga Edition Resources:
My Google Docs Character Record Sheet
SE Official FAQ Compilation - SE Official Errata & Clarifications - Jedi Counseling 105 to 115

Edge of the Empire Resources: Beta Updates, crib sheets, and other goodies

Yes, there are errors in a lot of statblocks, and not just in this system. Stats are much harder than text to edit/proofread, I can tell you from firsthand experience--that's why.

_________________
Arkansas Regional Captain & proud member of Spice Runners Squadron
Kessel Base, The Rebel Legion

"The bad guys hardly ever quote Star Wars."
Harry Dresden, Cold Days