Talk:Modified FFG Resources

Rarity as a Cost Basis
Unsurprisingly, I'm going to have opinions on this. I've skimmed it over and such so far and I have concerns about using Rarity as a defining trait, because Rarity has absolutely no correlation to how good an item is in this game. Let me grab a couple armor examples.

Timber Cuirass: Soak 1, Defense 1. Encumbrance 4. Hard Points 1. Rarity 5. No other attributes. Very easy to get as a defining item (it costs you a step up on rarity).

Ancient Battle Armor: Soak 2, Defense 0. Encumbrance 6. Hard Points 1. Rarity 9. Increases Defense value by 1 when Force User.

Ancient Battle Armor is straight up worse than the much easier to get Timber Cuirass for anybody who isn't a Force User and equal to the Timber Cuirass for Force Users. However, it is 4 steps higher on the rarity chart. And I realize I'm just grabbing one example, but the rarity values aren't remotely balanced for this type of work. For example, the Diplomat's Robe, a 1/0 light armor that gives a boost die to certain social rolls, is Rarity 6 (but only costs 400 credits).

I get where you're going with this, but I feel like the equipment list is going to present a lot of "WTF why can I get that so easily" or "Why is that so impossible to get?" scenarios. Eustacio (talk)

Defining Armor vs. Weapons
Why can you choose three options for weapons but only two options for armor under Defining Weapon and Defining Armor respectively? Eustacio (talk)