Just wrote an example how the high soak guy can easily be addressed with RAW. Doesn't even require big huge guns, although by my count in docking bay 94 there were 7 troopers, with a LRB and at least one HBR, so it isn't like they don't show up ready to rock in the movies.

But if that very same stormtrooper clique were to then find their attention on another PC (presumably not the worrisome soak-beast), it splatters the poor fool so far into "DEAD", the potential risk of the character sheet spontaneously bursting into flames at the table is real...

So what do you plan on throwing at your players for opponents? I don't think of a squad of stormtroopers and a sergeant as completely off base for potential opponents players in a Star Wars RPG might face. My example was to simply add a glop grenade or two to the sergeant. The stormtroopers could be armed with plain ol blaster rifles like they are.

I'm not certain, but I believe you may be missing part of the point here WRT your solution (which is, quite frankly, a common one) and why it can be problematic.

Yes. You can throw a sick killing squad at the soak-beast to challenge him. But same said killing squad isn't just an inconvenience to the other PCs. It's a death sentence.

Balancing an encounter across the whole group of PCs, when some are soak-beasts and others not, is not as simple as just "throwing scary dice pools of hot blaster fire at them". Because the moment one of the non-invulnerable characters gets caught all up in it, their toast.

The idea of this thread was not to kill the Brawn aspect of this game but to find something that non-coms/semi-combat people can be better at surviving a firefight. I hope that a 2/2 is soon available so that w/o the use of High Brawn scores or talents that are not part of your skill tree that you can survive a firefight for longer than 2 turns...that is all.

Since I am a pilot my skills are set for that career, and hopefully when the scoundrel book comes out and maybe a gunslinger spec. comes w/ it, then I can level in that as well to help my offense.

Just wrote an example how the high soak guy can easily be addressed with RAW. Doesn't even require big huge guns, although by my count in docking bay 94 there were 7 troopers, with a LRB and at least one HBR, so it isn't like they don't show up ready to rock in the movies.

But if that very same stormtrooper clique were to then find their attention on another PC (presumably not the worrisome soak-beast), it splatters the poor fool so far into "DEAD", the potential risk of the character sheet spontaneously bursting into flames at the table is real...

So what do you plan on throwing at your players for opponents? I don't think of a squad of stormtroopers and a sergeant as completely off base for potential opponents players in a Star Wars RPG might face. My example was to simply add a glop grenade or two to the sergeant. The stormtroopers could be armed with plain ol blaster rifles like they are.

I'm not certain, but I believe you may be missing part of the point here WRT your solution (which is, quite frankly, a common one) and why it can be problematic.

Yes. You can throw a sick killing squad at the soak-beast to challenge him. But same said killing squad isn't just an inconvenience to the other PCs. It's a death sentence.

Balancing an encounter across the whole group of PCs, when some are soak-beasts and others not, is not as simple as just "throwing scary dice pools of hot blaster fire at them". Because the moment one of the non-invulnerable characters gets caught all up in it, their toast.

How is a squad of stormtroopers and some immobilization techniques off base? This started out 'soak is too high and I can't hurt him', so I point out there are ways to take a high soak guy out of the equation that don't involve overcoming soak at all. Now it's turned into anything that can defeat a high soak guy that bypasses soak is also a no go for the low soak people as well?

It doesn't need to be stormtroopers, it can be less than 6 as well, a glop grenade or a concussion grenade or a snare launcher option aren't going to give a fig over soak and can take the high soak guy out of the equation in a fight. Given that, the multitude of tools available to disable a high soak player that bypass soak, I simply see no reason to nerf soak.

Hired Guns can autokill all minions...so,,I'm pretty sure where FF stands regarding inter-party balance with combat- it doesn't give a ****.

Characters in Edge of the Empire are balanced as 'whole people' rather than combat in mind.

Let's be very clear here - the big concern (for me at least) is not that one hit would outright kill a PC. That is frankly unlikely with the critical system as it is, fighting Minions and Rivals (and leaving aside Nemeses with missile tubes). A lot of the concern about 1-shot kills (versus 1-shot incapacity) is hyperbolic and not rooted in reasonable game mechanics for Minions and most Rivals.

My concern is more rapidly taking lower-Soak characters out of combat and thus out of the game, leaving the player out of the IC game until his character regains consciousness (not a fun place to be with regularity).

In an attempt to answer to 2P51's comment: "I don't understand the issue people have with soak."

Our issue is tying Brawn, or Toughness, or Constitution, or whatever other resilience characteristic a game may use, to a mechanic that represents a character's ability to shrug physical damage. And it's not an issue, at all, finding something to challenge soak monsters, but it is a challenge balancing an encounter so that it challenges all characters equitably. With the SWRPG being so innovative, this resilience/soak mechanic is still dredged along?

I don't really have a problem with some involvement of the "natural soak" mechanic. A lot of complaints about it are simulationist in nature, and simulationist using justification I don't buy into. That being said, yes, the disparity is problematic because it reflects a One True Build issue revolving around combat and Brawn.

I don't think the solution is removing Brawn from the equation and having all Soak be based on armor, because armor was never a big thing in the movies or EU themes revolving around the main characters (and this aspect has been discussed to death). Maybe you get half your Brawn in natural Soak, rounding up (because organic matter is not going to resist blaster fire equal or better to purpose-built armor, but being tough should do something).

...BBBBBYYYGG v. P. I'm thinking high soak guy is gonna take a hit.

See above...

...BBBBBYYYGG v. P. I'm thinking high soak guy is gonna take a hit.

See above...

I point out that example was just to show it's possible to lay a high soak guy low with standard fare. It's also possible to take him out of a fight completely bypassing soak. That example doesn't require it to be that case though and the same immobilization techniques could be used by a less lethal group of adversaries to the same effect.

I point out that example was just to show it's possible to lay a high soak guy low with standard fare...

Yes. Yet you seem to keep missing the fact that the high soak guy isn't the only character there. When those stormtroopers turn on another PC, that poor character is laid low.

And, to be frank, I don't think "hey, as the GM you can roll gobs of death dice at the problem" is anything groundbreaking. DM's have been chucking greater-demon-ancient-red-dragon-tarrasques at problem PC's since the dawn of RPGs. Brute force isn't the solve-all.

And you keep taking quotes out of context. Any group of adversaries can toss concussion grenades and glop grenades and have snares. They can defeat high soak without resorting to brute force. Since soak isn't something terribly hard to overcome with the immobilization techniques I've pointed out, nuking soak is a solution looking for a problem.

I deny your allegation that I have taken anything out of context. That you may have since backpedaled from your original suggestion is beside the point.

To paraphrase your original point that I broght into question:

"To deal with high soak characters, try immobilizing them first then hit them with a ridiculously large dice pool of impending doom! See 'em try in vain to soak that mutha!".

If that is a characterization, please, enlighten...

The point is not to take out the high soak character. Just like it isn't to make the elite slicer not be able to crack the computer. The point is to make them feel that the character they created is doing the job it was created to do. So if someone creates a "soak monster", he probably wants to wade into combat, shrugging off hits and take out the bad guys. Or at least keep the bad guys busy while the rest of the party picks them off or goes about their business. Certainly you can challenge him once in a while, by either creating a "monster" of your own to challenge him or be hitting him in the dumps stats. But overall he should be effective at what he does, which is soak up hits.

I have to admit that I don't understand why this is an issue for some. Do you also look for ways to cut other characters off at the knees because they are good at what they do (pilots, facemen, slicers)? This all seems rather adversarial to me. At the end of the day I find the random nature of combat is more than enough to put the fear into the hardiest of characters. The right roll at the right time can take them out just as easily as anyone else.

I think I've posted a high soak character can be stopped without needing to overcome their soak. Since they can be stopped without overcoming their soak, there is no need to adjust the rules in regards to how soak is computed at all. If a GM wants to stop a high soak character and not deploy anything that could hurt the more fragile members of a group I'll provide the examples again.

Glop grenade- Ensnare 3

Net Gun - Ensnare 5

Bola - Ensnare 3, Knockdown

Concussion Grenade - Concussive 2, Disorient 5

All of those options will easily remove a high soak player from a fight and are not constrained by soak. All are readily available and very simple to put into use, both mechanically and narratively. All would be very effective. Given all of that re-writing soak rules is unnecessary.

I pointed out a simple squad of stormtroopers and a sergeant with their standard equipment are more than enough to hurt a high soak player if a GM feels so inclined.

The point is not to take out the high soak character. Just like it isn't to make the elite slicer not be able to crack the computer. The point is to make them feel that the character they created is doing the job it was created to do. So if someone creates a "soak monster", he probably wants to wade into combat, shrugging off hits and take out the bad guys. Or at least keep the bad guys busy while the rest of the party picks them off or goes about their business. Certainly you can challenge him once in a while, by either creating a "monster" of your own to challenge him or be hitting him in the dumps stats. But overall he should be effective at what he does, which is soak up hits.

I have to admit that I don't understand why this is an issue for some. Do you also look for ways to cut other characters off at the knees because they are good at what they do (pilots, facemen, slicers)? This all seems rather adversarial to me. At the end of the day I find the random nature of combat is more than enough to put the fear into the hardiest of characters. The right roll at the right time can take them out just as easily as anyone else.

This. Why is it the guy who shines in combat has to lower himself to the level of the librarian who doesn't want to put on a flak jacket and do some sit ups because it conflicts with his character self image?

More appropriately: "In a game setting where combat is most assuredly inevitable, why does any player ever feel the need to achieve such exorbitantly high soak values with his/her character- sans armor- when the remainder of that character's companions do not or cannot?"

At what point does enough trip over into excessive?

And to address mouthymerc: There's nothing adversarial about it, as far as I'm concerned. I simply find the mechanic dusty and outdated, problematic* in many other games that utilize it, and would prefer a working alternative.

*Of all the people I know that play RPGs in my area, only one or two of two dozen wouldn't continue raising soak just because the rules allow for it, and I'm one of them.

I wouldn't bother raising soak either for the examples I've provided. It's false security because it can be bypassed too easily. I always opt for the strong offense as primary defense. Much better to win initiative, shoot first, end it first.

I have to admit that I don't understand why this is an issue for some. Do you also look for ways to cut other characters off at the knees because they are good at what they do (pilots, facemen, slicers)? This all seems rather adversarial to me. At the end of the day I find the random nature of combat is more than enough to put the fear into the hardiest of characters. The right roll at the right time can take them out just as easily as anyone else.

My goal as a GM would not be to cut characters off at the knees in their fields of expertise. That being said, I would want to challenge them in that field. Slicer Talents make slicing easier, but where's the fun if it's all too easy? Sometimes easy is good to just keep things going, sometimes the super-expert needs to be legitimately challenged for the purpose of tension or the plot calls for it.

I use Slicer as an example because I'm playing a specialized slicer, mostly rolling GGYYBB on most slicing rolls and reducing base Difficulty by 1 (and this is basically a chargen character). Yes, I expect that many slicing activities will be easy simply because that's my focus. At the same time I will be disappointed if there is some important, hard-to-get data or slicing task that winds up not being tense for me both IC and OOC because victory is all but assured. If important things are easy, I get bored with it. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule on this.

There is a big difference between trying to make the characters fail (which a GM can do by fiat anyway) and making the success that much sweeter by making the task hard for even the veteran expert to complete successfully. Whether as a GM or as a player, I enjoy moments of the latter. It just so happens that everyone is usually expected to contribute in some way to combat (if only using Aid actions) but the same can't be said for specialized tests like mechanics, social skills, etc. where the "group's specialist" is usually deferred to.

I think I'm starting to digress a little on this. I guess a good parallel is social interaction. A GM might want to run a social encounter like a ball (with defined goals that the PCs want to accomplish by the end of the ball) and want to challenge both the deeply-social Politico (who's going to throw lots more dice and Talents) as well as the Survivalist who is just rolling straight green Presence. But even this analogy falls short, since groups tend to have experts handle the niche stuff, but needing or expecting everyone to participate in combat in some way. And obviously because social interaction may cause a lethal moment (offend the wrong person and a brawl breaks out) but that's an indirect effect of the scene rather than the direct effect of a planned combat.

In any case I like 2P's challenge ideas and if I was GMing I would use them from time to time. I think that would be an adequate challenge for both the combat wombat and everyone else.

Think about it this way.

In the Clone Wars TV series, is the enemy shooting Jar Jar most of the time, or Mace Windu? (Yeah, it happens. You can skip the episode.)

No, they're shooting Mace. When they 'team up' together, Jar Jar is clearly ignored because he's a fool and a non-threat, whereas Mace pretty much gets everything thrown at him that they can possibly muster. When Mace is out of the picture, what happens to Jar Jar? They don't kill him, they capture him for use as a hostage.

This is the same dynamic of course for Amidala/Anakin and Leia/Luke. Killing a highly specialized technician, diplomat, scout or doctor means you just wasted a perfectly good resource. Princesses and IT guys don't grow on trees.

Why? Because the enemy knows that the 'big dude' is the real threat, and neutralizing him is the only possible way they could win the battle. Killing his librarian/slicer/whatever friends is stupid, because they don't actually represent a threat- in fact the way this is handled, is that those people are typically the ones the enemy wants to capture for information/use. When the 'big guy' is laid low, typically yeah- either the rest of the heroes pull off the rest of the fight heroically, or they're all captured.

It happens all the time in TV and movies, it's not a bad thing.

Every confrontation doesn't have to end in death. That's also very video gamey. Most of the time in the movies and cartoons, and frankly in real life, a group of trespassers typically is taken into custody if possible. Most folks would like information and not just a body count. Same goes for player BHs. Jabba wanted Han alive. All the more reason to find alternatives to overcoming soak for a GM that are not lethal.

All the time in TV (and movies) except for this: there's no EoE script- big guy goes down, everyone else gets indignant, bum rushes the opposition, BOOM! Everyone down. Maybe they're captured, or looted and left for dead? Maybe some even die! But not one of my players would consider surrender if offered, even after their "tank" were laid low. So what now? The opposition doesn't want to accidentally kill the princess- they don't just grow on trees- but she's not surrendering! Stand there and take the bum rush, or put her down? What if she dies?

That is a bad thing.

Players simply do not behave realistically, even in-character, when playing a game.

There's no script, so the TV/movie analogy is a little shaky.

Things that challenge the soak monster will splatter the non combatants? Then maybe the NCs need to learn the value of running away. If you aren't willing to learn combat skills and wearing armor, don't try and trade fire with stormtroopers.

Every confrontation doesn't have to end in death. That's also very video gamey. Most of the time in the movies and cartoons, and frankly in real life, a group of trespassers typically is taken into custody if possible. Most folks would like information and not just a body count. Same goes for player BHs. Jabba wanted Han alive. All the more reason to find alternatives to overcoming soak for a GM that are not lethal.

Right, but Soak is frequently implicated when the PCs are to be captured by force, unwillingly, instead of surrendering. I forget if the Stun setting of weapons interacts with Soak or targets ST instead of WT but that is always a good option too.

But your argument is a little harder to make when we see a lot of shooting-at-PCs happening with blasters not set to stun.

Things that challenge the soak monster will splatter the non combatants? Then maybe the NCs need to learn the value of running away. If you aren't willing to learn combat skills and wearing armor, don't try and trade fire with stormtroopers.

Yeah, because always doing that is fun. I could find threads on here where people complain that their Scholar just runs or hides from combat and doesn't contribute, and the forum was overwhelmingly negative about possible IC consequences the team "should" inflict on them for not "pulling their weight" in combat. Hence my assertion why a slicer is not held to task for not being able to talk pretty but will be if he can't shoot straight. It just goes back to the nature of RPGs that combat is gonna happen and suggesting that players either sit out of it or invest outside their areas of interest is not a productive solution.

This is a big reason why I tend to play combat characters, as an aside. Who likes to be the guy who can't contribute to fights? You get **** both IC and OOC for that.

This is a big reason why I tend to play combat characters, as an aside. Who likes to be the guy who can't contribute to fights? You get **** both IC and OOC for that.

I think that sucks if you are stuck playing with such individuals. My.group consists of combat characters and non-combat characters. The non-coms leave a majority of combat to the coms and either hide or move to do something more appropriate to their abilities. No one begrudges the other for their contributions. Nor should they.

And I never said do not challenge characters in their field. It just seems to me that some feel like they need to be doing it all the time. Maybe it is because for some combat encounters are more common than non-combat encounters so some feel they need to challenge them more often.

Talents, and for that matter skills, aren't really necessary for a non combatant to contribute to combat. A modded blaster rifle could provide 2 ranks of Accuracy, so even someone with no skill at all and an Agility 2 would be BBGG on a roll. They should be able to hit pretty consistently and do some damage.

Make that a blaster rifle a grenade launcher and they don't even have to be great to do some damage.

This is a big reason why I tend to play combat characters, as an aside. Who likes to be the guy who can't contribute to fights? You get **** both IC and OOC for that.

My current campaign is based upon a group of bounty hunters (only one of which is of the Bounty Hunter Career) with about 400 XP. One of our most valuable characters is our Twi'lek face. She's a Colonist (Politico, Scholar) that has Brawn 2 and Agility 2 with Ranged (Light) 2 as her only combat skill. In combat she primarily contributes through Inspiring Rhetoric (Improved) - by reminding her comrades of what they're fighting for (justice and/or money depending on the team member) - granting Strain Recovery and Boost dice to friendlies. Sometimes she throws in a bit of Scathing Tirade (Improved) - usually depicting in graphic detail the terrible crimes her prey has committed - to inflict the opponents with some Strain and Setback dice. Out of combat, she's incredible as the 'fun fact' (She has Intellect 3 and 2 ranks in every Knowledge skill) and face character.

However that doesn't mean she's stupidly unprepared for combat. During investigations, she's typically in Heavy Clothing and sporting a Blaster Pistol, but when it comes time to kick in doors with the team, she's dressed in Padded Armor and carries a Blaster Rifle with Forearm Grip (Accurate 1 and Point Blank 1 Mods) and Pistol Grip.

With the SWRPG being so innovative, this resilience/soak mechanic is still dredged along?

This!

Plus soak and specially high soak does not feel Star Warsdish. Star Wars combat (as seen in the movies) is getting into cover, running and trying no to be hit, because one single hit from a blaster is deadly, even from a light blaster pistol. Or is it only me thinking this?

Soak is more fitted to a universe like Warhammer 40K.