<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=163921.msg7695942#msg7695942">Quote from: SneakyGuy on 09-02-2013, 08:38:15</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Quick question. You can use weapons for different skill with -30 modifier, right?<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Per p.173, "Defaulting to Related Skills," yes, although it's somewhat of a GM call. For instance if it's just point-and-shoot as described, you can use just about any weapon. On the other hand, if a character without Seeker Weapons skill tried to do indirect fire with seeker missiles against a target they couldn't see, I'd probably have them roll the linked Aptitude and treat their other weapon skill as a Complementary Bonus (same page). I.E., if their Kinetic or Laser weapons skill was below 61, it'd be Aptitude + 10% or Aptitude +20%.<br/><br/>I might do something similar for Spray Weapons, as well. The two which map best to each other are Kinetic (since with a smart sight, every shot is effectively a point blank (in the real definition of 'The bullet strikes where the sights say it will and you don't need to adjust for range or windage, not the Hollywood definition of 'I could have reached out and touched the target')) and Lasers (which travel in straight lines, generally, and thus are again, always PB). Spray Weapons that don't fire hypersonic rounds but instead require you to hose a stream of stuff around (Buzzer, Freezer, Sprayer, Torch), on the other hand, are going to be MUCH more affected by local variations in microgravity or coriolis force (yes, that's a big deal when most of your fighting is done in habitats...Eclipse Phase does NOT have artificial gravity!), and Seeker Weapons used in indirect fire are effectively voodoo.<br/><br/>The example given supports this, it relates expressly to Kinetic Weapons skill being used to fire a laser, because the character "might not be trained in the use of a laser, but they know enough to point at the target and pull the trigger."<br/><br/><hr/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=163921.msg7696829#msg7696829">Quote from: ReijiTabibito on 09-02-2013, 17:30:19</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">BTW, Carny, if you wanted to update the list of player types, I'm playing a Menton Argonaut who has significant experience Gatecrashing and will be the sort of group thinker/TITAN expert/general all-purpose brain.<br/><br/>Also, can anyone tell me the difference between Forensics and Forensic Archaeology?  I have written down in my notes Profession: Forensic Archaeology with TITAN Constructs as a Skill w/Specialty, but I looked at a couple of pregenned chars in the corebook and they have Profession: Forensics...<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>If anyone wants to update the list, they just need to copy and paste. It isn't as if it were a formatted table or anything.<br/><br/>I talked to you about the difference between forensics and forensic archaeology in pm previously. Check your old PMs?<br/><br/><hr/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=163921.msg7696811#msg7696811">Quote from: Darkling on 09-02-2013, 17:26:41</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">im going to be mixing social and combat most likely, the exact nature of my character im still pondering on. way back i was planning on a ultimate diplomat, but not really feeling it just now. So im deciding between a savvy gatecrasher or a relentlessly friendly exhuman AGI (who, ironically, is approaching the Ultimate philosophy from the far side)<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>You will probably need to get approval from Ebpohmr for an exhuman background. I believe he stated that he wanted to approve characters that wanted to have any exhuman REP, so having a background would probably be even more iffy.