Star Wars Supplement

[knight508]

I've created a homebrew Star WArs supplement. Let me know what you think. It might not be worth much, but it can really enhance a themed game.

http://707785945648512403-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/walrusism/walrible/SupplementSW.pdf?attredirects=0&auth=ANoY7cqmA6XQV6qdBvKjow0BpcSnCoqshVxmLVxa1y3AvXIyufyET2xIBZsv_2jmLYKSWtoZNbiOSAWH2Eu0o8pdDylm_Z6HNqUflsGo_Ht3ypLAL1iwuRuNxELkl1D04SsBa5UUhgPxgYbfHnJgrTqeNDbXPaszlrh63Hm3tdgNl9yRF6rLCiYtRZ559HXjN9QjBvt-rmjch-qGm2Yt77tiugwW84vO2w%3D%3D

[Greenkey15]

Looks good and complete. Only bad thing I see is that it's 2001.

[knight508]

I wasn't aware that the 2001 ruleset was inferior. I actually prefer it, as in my glorious Star Wars nerdiness I feel that the 2001 rules give a lot more depth than the 2005 rules. I may eventually post a 2005 version of this stuff as well...

[pesgores]

Lol how many time did you take to do this and then someone said that it should be done according to the 2005 ruleset instead of 2001?

[tahthing]

Lol how many time did you take to do this and then someone said that it should be done according to the 2005 ruleset instead of 2001?

this is bad i am retarded.

[pesgores]

Lol how many time did you take to do this and then someone said that it should be done according to the 2005 ruleset instead of 2001?

this is bad i am retarded.

"i am retarded" is bad grammar too.

[tahthing]

no i am retarded is bad spelling

[birdman]

no i am retarded is bad spelling

[Greenkey15]

:? I wasn't aware that the 2001 ruleset was inferior. I actually prefer it, as in my glorious Star Wars nerdiness I feel that the 2001 rules give a lot more depth than the 2005 rules. I may eventually post a 2005 version of this stuff as well...

It isn't inferior, just most players don't use it.

[birdman]

many are of the impression that it is superior, just too in-depth. think of 2001 being to 2005 what rogue trader was to 4th edition.

[knight508]

Persegores Wrote:

i am retarded" is bad grammar too.

Lol how many time did you take to do this and then someone said that it should be done according to the 2005 ruleset instead of 2001?

1. Both your grammar leaves much to be desired.
2. Actually, this took me about a week. 2001 as opposed to 2005 is a matter of personal preference. I prefer 2001. And, if you look at it, there really isn't anything that's incompatible with 2005 rules in my supplement. I've actually playtested this with 2005 and 2001. It works in both.
3. And in reply to the mole-type creature... I resent that.

Thanks for your comments.

[IVhorseman]

many are of the impression that it is superior, just too in-depth. think of 2001 being to 2005 what rogue trader was to 4th edition.

4th edition is awesome and you know it (seriously, I just came back from the most brutal delve in my life).

Oh also (Rayhawk, listen up), they plopped gnomes AND bards into PHB 2, so Büttrøck can live again.

[pesgores]

1. Both your grammar leaves much to be desired.

I'm not a native English speaker. At least you understand me.

E agora começo mesmo a falar português só para te irritar e se usares algum programa tradutor temos pena. Além disso, podes não perceber certas expressões. Resumindo, cala a boca.

[Greenkey15]

Sou um grande pato.

[knight508]

This entire thread is rapidly dissolving into chaos. The point of this was to act as as sounding board for a new supplement, not an infantile argumentation arena.