Beyond the Rim page 31, 4th paragraph under the header "Kidnapping IT-3P0", 3rd and 4th sentences; "The PCs must dodge people, cargo, and droids while chasing down the Rodians. The characters should make Average (PP) Athletics or Coordination checks while making maneuvers, and all ranged combat checks add at least one Setback die due to the congested conditions."

Huh! I think I'm up to 4 things learned today. What a haul!

(edit)

Why would you go that route instead of the 'combining skill checks' route?

I don't have Beyond the Rim, but perhaps it requires a more thorough read? Or, perhaps, too much is being inferred here?

The CRB is very clear (e.g. page 204, first paragraph) that if a character is making a skill check, it requires an action to do so. Perhaps what the text in Beyond the Rim means is that, in line with the established rules, "if you want to move through the traffic, you've gotta use your action to make an Athletics or Coordination check."

I would think that such a drastic change to the core mechanics would require an explicit statement to that effect. And this is no such thing. It simply states that, to perform maneuvers in this environment, one must also make a skill check. And skill checks, as have been established, are actions.

EDIT: but in the example of dodging cars and shooting, I would still allow players to combined their skill checks (lowest skill rank & ability, highest difficulty).

I don't have Beyond the Rim, but perhaps it requires a more thorough read? Or, perhaps, too much is being inferred here?

The CRB is very clear (e.g. page 204, first paragraph) that if a character is making a skill check, it requires an action to do so. Perhaps what the text in Beyond the Rim means is that, in line with the established rules, "if you want to move through the traffic, you've gotta use your action to make an Athletics or Coordination check."

I would think that such a drastic change to the core mechanics would require an explicit statement to that effect. And this is no such thing. It simply states that, to perform maneuvers in this environment, one must also make a skill check. And skill checks, as have been established, are actions.

Except that the context of the scene is a chase in which the players only have a few rounds to catch up with their opponents. If moving a single range band required an action, the scene would be impossible. I believe they used the term "maneuver" for a reason, although I can see the logic otherwise.

In any case, page 204 doesn't indicate that all skill checks are always an action, only that this will usually be the case in most situations. Many talents that require a check take only a maneuver (or even an incidental) to use, and the rules for vehicular chase scenes call for Piloting checks at the top of every round outside the context of spending any actions. So the precident is there.

In my games this usually comes up with skills like Athletics, Coordination, Piloting (Planetary and Space) and Stealth because those are the skills most typically associated with movement. However, on occaison someone will make a Perception check as a maneuver to locate someone or something, determine who needs healing, or whatever else.

To my knowledge, the only talent in the CRB that requires a maneuver for a skill check is "Known Schematic," and that once per encounter. IMO it is a clear exception to the general rule.

Otherwise it just gets too messy. Players start looking for maneuvers to generate more Advantage and Triumph, and the game balance is thrown off. And it bogs down gameplay, trying to build and resolve dice pools for maneuvers as well as actions. A skill check for a move is very prominent in d20 systems, and I can understand people carrying that thinking over to this system, but personally I don't find any basis for this in the rules. Skill checks, and actions, are "big deals" that carry with them a chance of failure. Maneuvers, on the other hand, do not carry with them a chance of failure (CRB page 200). Therefore, no skill check for a maneuver.

As a general rule, I am sticking with RAW and what the devs have said before on the O66 podcast (to which I never listen), and requiring an action of my PCs to make a skill check unless there's some talent or other effect that says to do otherwise. Normal maneuvers like flying a ship don't require skill checks, but when flying a ship does require a check, it is an action.

HOWEVER, the GM can call for a check whenever he feels like it, and that check doesn't have to use up a player's action. Initiative checks aren't actions. Perception checks could be called for during combat, and those don't have to be actions. So perhaps the situation in Beyond the Rim is in this vein. Still, I wouldn't make this a precedent for all future "maneuvers in dangerous environs."

The CRB is very clear (e.g. page 204, first paragraph) that if a character is making a skill check, it requires an action to do so. Perhaps what the text in Beyond the Rim means is that, in line with the established rules, "if you want to move through the traffic, you've gotta use your action to make an Athletics or Coordination check."

I think that's how I'd interpret it, if you want to spend your Action doing a Maneuver, you can make a skill check.

To my knowledge, the only talent in the CRB that requires a maneuver for a skill check is "Known Schematic," and that once per encounter. IMO it is a clear exception to the general rule.

Otherwise it just gets too messy. Players start looking for maneuvers to generate more Advantage and Triumph, and the game balance is thrown off. And it bogs down gameplay, trying to build and resolve dice pools for maneuvers as well as actions. A skill check for a move is very prominent in d20 systems, and I can understand people carrying that thinking over to this system, but personally I don't find any basis for this in the rules. Skill checks, and actions, are "big deals" that carry with them a chance of failure. Maneuvers, on the other hand, do not carry with them a chance of failure (CRB page 200). Therefore, no skill check for a maneuver.

As a general rule, I am sticking with RAW and what the devs have said before on the O66 podcast (to which I never listen), and requiring an action of my PCs to make a skill check unless there's some talent or other effect that says to do otherwise. Normal maneuvers like flying a ship don't require skill checks, but when flying a ship does require a check, it is an action.

HOWEVER, the GM can call for a check whenever he feels like it, and that check doesn't have to use up a player's action. Initiative checks aren't actions. Perception checks could be called for during combat, and those don't have to be actions. So perhaps the situation in Beyond the Rim is in this vein. Still, I wouldn't make this a precedent for all future "maneuvers in dangerous environs."

True that. But keep in mind if you incude the modules as RAW -- which I do, personally -- there is a precident for manuever based skill checks. (You also have talents like Supreme Inspiring Rhetoric, Supreme Scathing Tirade, Familiar Suns, and Improved Full Throttle which all require a skill check as a maneuver.)

For the reason I highlighted in your response, this should be kept to a minimum. For me, there has to be something narratively interesting to go with the check and explain the boons granted with Advantage/Triumph. The first time this came up was in the aforementioned module; the first time someone made an Athletics check to push through the crowd they failed, but later on someone passed with a Triumph, which ended up being described as the PC running on the shoulders of the crowd for a moment firing at the enemy, thus upgrading the ability of his check once (if for no other reason than how cool that sounds).

In the case of the landspeeder, jumping from speeder to speeder is an epic moment, which is further emphasized by my suggested fear check. So Advatnage/Triumph earned here is cinematically "earned", so to speak.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, running at someone down an empty hallway and using Athletics to gain Advantage/Triumph probably isn't very flavorful, nor is using Perception to study an opponent. I MIGHT still allow these things with a manuever, but only if the player manages to convince me they're trying this because they thought of a cool description, not because they want to abuse the dice system. (Setting the difficulty at Hard or even Daunting with some possible Setbacks helps.)

So, now I've got the proverbial gun to my head..he came up with the action, and I've got to set difficulty. How would you rate the task?

Depends on how banged up the speeder was, but I probably would have gone with 2 purples, spent a destiny point to upgrade a purple to red, added a black for the lousy conditions (on your head, upside down in a crashing speeder) and a second black for being rushed.

Players have dived into fire escape chute to escape some imperials. The fire escapes are fairly wide, repulsor-lift chutes designed to keep people falling at a safe speed (seemed more logical than stairs for multi-hundred floor buildings). The imperials lean in and shoot out a couple of the repulsorlift power supplies and the players start to fall faster. They want to skydive/swim into another fire escape chute on a lower level. What's the difficulty?

Well, the escape chutes are generally designed not to be lethal, even when malfunctioning (I imagine there's all kind of redundancy), so even at an accelerated rate, I'd probably only go one purple - but then throw 'em a black for being together in a group and another for velocity.

The group is engaged in a firefight between three landspeeders that are currently racing across a Tatooine desert. As one speeder pulls up beside the PCs, the group's marauder decides that he is going to make an attempt to leap aboard the other vehicle. Then, he decides that he wants to make it a fluid attack, attempting to kick one of the thugs out of the speeder as he is coming down. How would you present the skill check/difficulty.

Well, I'd probably start out with how well the PC driver did - if they rolled well, I'd make the jump easier, but a bad roll means harder. So anywhere from 2 to 3 purples for the jump. As for the attack, a straight up brawling attack, but add some blue for the force of landing (and the cool unexpected maneuver).

It's funny that no one has mentioned the NPC driver and his response to the PC trying to jump to his vehicle. I'd take a look at the roll of the NPC driver on his Piloting check and see if he would do good enough to yank the steering column right as the PC is jumping. Or that could be a Despair result on the PC's jump/attack action.

True that. But keep in mind if you incude the modules as RAW -- which I do, personally -- there is a precident for manuever based skill checks. (You also have talents like Supreme Inspiring Rhetoric, Supreme Scathing Tirade, Familiar Suns, and Improved Full Throttle which all require a skill check as a maneuver.)

Oh, duh. I forgot about those! And they are some of my favorite talents :-D

Unfortunately the modules are still on my to-buy list, after saving up for the AoR core rulebook and (I hope) the FaD beta later this year. Darned priorities.

For the reason I highlighted in your response, this should be kept to a minimum. For me, there has to be something narratively interesting to go with the check and explain the boons granted with Advantage/Triumph. The first time this came up was in the aforementioned module; the first time someone made an Athletics check to push through the crowd they failed, but later on someone passed with a Triumph, which ended up being described as the PC running on the shoulders of the crowd for a moment firing at the enemy, thus upgrading the ability of his check once (if for no other reason than how cool that sounds).

In the case of the landspeeder, jumping from speeder to speeder is an epic moment, which is further emphasized by my suggested fear check. So Advatnage/Triumph earned here is cinematically "earned", so to speak.

You convinced me! I find myself in complete agreement here.

Ok, one more:

I'm always curious how the sport of jousting can be handled by an RPG system. I remember seeing separate rules written for 3.5 systems. The trick is that you have to account for the inertia of the animal (which one gets out of the gate/accelerates faster), the steady control of the rider to land a direct blow, and the resilience to stay mounted when hit.

For flavor, let's say that there's a group on Naboo that holds a tournaments for Kaadu jousting (sure you could use lancer bikes, but animals add that hard-to-predict element), Maybe there is a big payout, or the prize is an object that the players need. Regardless, the PCs pick one of their own, whom they see as most fit for the task, as a representative in competition. He is fitted in a suit of laminate armor, and takes his seat on the back of a Kaadu. As he steps up to the line, he eyes his opponent at the end of the field. The flags drop, and they begin their charge.

How would you handle the check?

Ok, one more:

I'm always curious how the sport of jousting can be handled by an RPG system. I remember seeing separate rules written for 3.5 systems. The trick is that you have to account for the inertia of the animal (which one gets out of the gate/accelerates faster), the steady control of the rider to land a direct blow, and the resilience to stay mounted when hit.

For flavor, let's say that there's a group on Naboo that holds a tournaments for Kaadu jousting (sure you could use lancer bikes, but animals add that hard-to-predict element), Maybe there is a big payout, or the prize is an object that the players need. Regardless, the PCs pick one of their own, whom they see as most fit for the task, as a representative in competition. He is fitted in a suit of laminate armor, and takes his seat on the back of a Kaadu. As he steps up to the line, he eyes his opponent at the end of the field. The flags drop, and they begin their charge.

How would you handle the check?

Cool!

I would do opposed Melee checks, and adding in a maneuver to brace. Damage done would be strain, unless it was meant to be to the death.

Net successes deal strain damage directly, exactly as you'd expect. Net advantages (and uncancelled personal threats) apply boost/setback dice to the next roll. If either side did not generate any successes, they did not connect at all. If they generated successes, but were overwhelmed, they had the lesser hit.

Any hit requires an average 'stay mounted' athletics roll (easy if you want more passes, hard if you want to resolve in one pass), modified by the number of advantages/threats generated as above. Failure indicates being dismounted, threats indicate additional strain. The 'brace' maneuver above grants a boost die to the stay mounted roll.

I think that'd be something my players would get a kick out of.

Opposed Survival checks followed by opposed Athletics checks followed by opposed Melee checks followed a Resilience check for anyone who gets hit.

That's IF you want to have some depth to it.

I could also see it as a simple opposed Athletics check as well.

Opposed Survival checks followed by opposed Athletics checks followed by opposed Melee checks followed a Resilience check for anyone who gets hit.

That's IF you want to have some depth to it.

I could also see it as a simple opposed Athletics check as well.

Oh. Resilience. That'd probably be a valid alternative (or better choice) than the athetics check in my method.

Personally, I would use just one check, probably opposed Survival, then let the Success/Failure, threat/advantage, and Triumph/Despair narrate how it all went down.

With that being said, if you really wanted the Joust to be a main focus of the session and not so much something that is going on in the periphery, then certain do the multiple checks route.

Here's a fun idea; opposed Survival checks modified by Brawn! I really get a kick out of mixing and matching characteristics and skills sometimes. It's a rare occurance, but it happens. (For instance, I allow Piloting [Planetary or Space] checks modified by Intellect to replace certain Computers, Mechanics and Knowledge checks related to vehicles.)

These are good ideas. Another wrench to jousting is that if you do multiple passes, you need a scoring system. Medieval jousting is scored on broken lances and dismounting. Maybe a set number of advantages could result in a broken lance.

Also, I'm torn on whether I would use an opposed check or a competitive check. The opposed check is described as the opponent trying to stop the character from doing something, while a competitive check is described as both characters striving to accomplish the same goal and see who can do it better. This makes competitive check seem more appropriate; however, I like that the opposed check has the likelihood of adding one or more Challenge dice.

In my game, I've established the Mandalorian moon of Concordia as a pirate's haven, a place filled with gambling, vice, and violence protected from the Empire and New Mandalorians (the semi-pacifists) by renegade Mando'a clans (like Clan Skirata and Clan Ordo). One of the PCs is entering the game soon as a Mando'a Hired Gun (Marauder/Heavy/Gadgeteer) who used to be a gladiator at an infamous Concordian fighting pit until a New Mandalorian planetary defense force detachment attacked his community and scattered his clan across the sector.

My concern is thus;

Why haven't I written rules on Basilisk War Droid jousting competitions? If there's one thing Edge of the Empire is missing, it's rules for Basilisk War Droid jousting competitions!!!!!! 3:)

After thinking about it, I would let the player decide their strategy and have them choose a skill based on their strategy. This works similar to Sabacc rules. In Sabacc, you use cool by default, but if you are trying to bluff you use deception, cheat with a skifter you would use computers, or whatever you can think of that would make sense.

This could be pretty involved, but you could treat each round like a lap in the Taming the Dragon modular encounter. Survival, for controlling the animal; opposed Coercion or Deception to represent the game of wills; Athletics to line up the shot (not Melee, I don't think it really qualifies because it's as much about riding as hitting); and Resilience to recover at the end of the round. This isn't complete, but you could go to this level of detail:

Survival: depends on mount, but start Average (add a setback die every round to represent the animal's exhaustion):

- Success controls the animal

- 2 Advantage: do not add a setback die next round

- 3 Advantage: recover a setback next round

- Triumph: upgrade either of the next two rolls

- Failure: add a setback to either of the next two rolls

- 1 Threat: rider takes strain (multiples)

- 3 Threat: add an additional setback next round

- Despair: one any of the next three rolls

Coercion/Deception (opposed)

- Loser is faked out, winner gets a boost die on Athletics check

- 2 Advantage: add boost die

- 2 Threat: add setback

- Triumph: upgrade Athletics check

- Despair: upgrade difficulty of Athletics check

Athletics: Average

- Success: as for Melee combat, but causes Strain. Damage: 4; Crit: 3; Limited Ammo: 1

- 2 Advantage: break lance fairly (gain points)

- 3 Advantage: convert Strain damage to Wounds

- Triumph: dismount opponent

- 1 Threat: rider takes strain (multiples)

- 3 Threat: hit other mount (lose points)

- Despair: own mount is hit but it's your fault (lose points), and upgrade difficulty of next Survival check

Resilience: recover strain with success.

--------------------------------------

Or if you just wanted something quick, roll contested Athletics checks for each round (like JonahHex said) and be done with it

Suns of Fortune is definitely the book to thumb through for inspiration, here. Those modular encounters are fun to pick apart and reassmble. In fact, even the Sabaac tournament is a precident for turning in-game games into game mechanics. (<---- such a strange sentence lol.)

What difficulty would you set for:

I'll hack all the communications or the public TVs and info terminals and and we will say that we are from a terrorist group and we have planted bombs throughout the whole station and it will blow up in half an hour as to not give them much time.

Deception or Coercion?

What difficulty would you set for:

I'll hack all the communications or the public TVs and info terminals and and we will say that we are from a terrorist group and we have planted bombs throughout the whole station and it will blow up in half an hour as to not give them much time.

Deception or Coercion?

Second, I'd say Coercion if it's true, Deception if it's false.