| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4855
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 8:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'd rule the same. Finding out if the RAW explicitly says something else is still useful.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fogger1138
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Posts: 105
Location: Maine
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | | Spirit of the rules. |
Disagree.
As I said WAAAY back in my first post, I imagine this is a common house rule, but it's not the way the rules are explicitly written. I'm not even arguing that the RAW makes more sense - I'm just arguing what is and isn't RAW.
| Mamatried wrote: | | the deabte is a bit silly imo |
Here, at least, I'll agree.
| Mamatried wrote: | | you roll 5D for ALL blaster wepons with a 5D blaster skill. this makes a specialization of 4D+1 not possible, becuse the spcialized weapon is INCLUDED in the overall skill. |
Except it's explicitly NOT included in the overall skill when there's a specialization, because the rules specifically say "Specializations are separate skills."
| Mamatried wrote: | | So choosing or later selecting hold out blaster specialization doe not exclude the hold out form the overall blaster skill. |
"Specializations are separate skills" would indicate otherwise.
All of the examples and justifications you've given in this thread violate either | R&E wrote: | | "Specializations are separate skills." |
or | R&E wrote: | | "If a character improves the basic skill, the specialization doesn't improve; if the specialization is improved, the basic skill doesn't go up." |
or both. It's a reasonable house rule to make, but it's simply not RAW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ebertran
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 204
Location: Miami, FL
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In 2e, Han Solo (GG 3, pg. 81) Han Solo has a 7d in Blaster, and a 5d+1 in his Blaster: Blaster Rifle specialization.
My assumption is that he got really good at blasters over time (His DEX is a 3d+1), but lagged behind on improving with rifles. Which we never see him shoot anyway, I believe.
So yes, I believe the RAW states these are separate increases and rolls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14246
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow.. Nice catch. Did not know they created a core character with such a discrepency...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fogger1138
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Posts: 105
Location: Maine
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ebertran wrote: | In 2e, Han Solo (GG 3, pg. 81) Han Solo has a 7d in Blaster, and a 5d+1 in his Blaster: Blaster Rifle specialization.
My assumption is that he got really good at blasters over time (His DEX is a 3d+1), but lagged behind on improving with rifles. Which we never see him shoot anyway, I believe.
So yes, I believe the RAW states these are separate increases and rolls. |
I've always thought this was because he was a crap shot with the stormtrooper rifle in ANH but good with most anything else we see him pick up.
Han's 2E stats are like that across the board - look at any 2E sourcebook published after R&E. (For anyone wanting to confirm: reference pages 13-14 of the Corporate Sector book, page 13 of the Dark Empire Sourcebook, page 129 of the 2E Sourcebook, page 33 of the Special Edition Trilogy Sourcebook, page 29 of the Thrawn Trilogy, page 31 of the Truce at Bakura, and so on)
I'd have brought this example up before as support, but I was told once that the stats are often kind of regarded as garbage, are sometimes inconsistent with the rules, and this could have been a mistake that was made once and then repeated by bad editing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14246
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OR they made the mistake once, then said "to heck with it" and left it that way.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
