Alright, I wanted to create a thread specificly for explosives, grenades, rockets, things that go boom. I really liked the idea of a dedicated explosives guy that they added into the Hired Guns supplmental book.

Now I want to bring your attention to a.... non-explosive grenade. Its a grenade so I figured this is the best place for it.

Blast area is (unless noted otherwise) all targets Engaged with the original target. The Blast rating is how much damage those targets take when Blast is activated. In this case, they take none.

See thats what I thought but I wasnt positive. I thought there was a range band with gernades.

Nope, blasts are always engaged unless otherwise noted. The number listed after the blast is the damage the blast does (if activated) to characters/vehicles engaged with the primary target. So glop grenades do no damage, they just ensnare 3.

As a side note, "engaged" can cover a good chunk of room, at least a dozenish meters in cases like blast.

Pffft... I never look at explosions.

Yeah. The blast radius for grenades is wonky. Engaged is, by definition, close enough to fully interact with. You're not engaged with someone unless you can see your reflection in their eyes as the vibroknife sticks 'em.

If your 'engaged' can cover a dozenish meters, it seems to me that you've got Mr Fantastic on your team

That's probably the one rule I shake my head at the most in this game so far (and I have otherwise been enjoying myself quite a bit playing). We've seen exploding computer consoles throw people around from distances greater than grenades would be dangerous (or maybe I'm getting Star Trek and Star Wars confused...it's already been a long morning)

I define engaged as Under 10' (Radius of Target).

Keeps it simple.

In the book it explains "WIthin Melee weapon distance", A pole arm/spear can be a 10' weapon.

SHort Distance says several meters, SO im reading that as over 10'.

SO in my games Grenades can catch several people. Grenades that get to trigger thier SHort range effect.. awesome!

As a side note, "engaged" can cover a good chunk of room, at least a dozenish meters in cases like blast.

Coming to EotE from Pathfinder this took me a while to get through my thick skull. I kept picturing Engaged as being the same thing as adjacent in PF and it isn't.

As a side note, "engaged" can cover a good chunk of room, at least a dozenish meters in cases like blast.

Coming to EotE from Pathfinder this took me a while to get through my thick skull. I kept picturing Engaged as being the same thing as adjacent in PF and it isn't.

This is where I want to post one of those Nathan Fillian .gifs where he is at a loss for words.

I don't think that 10', or even 'good chunk of room' really jives with 'The engaged status simply indicates that two things are close enough to each other to directly interact' (bold mine).

The intent of the rules seems to be that if you can't touch it (and I'll toss in the extra word) meaningfully, it's not at engaged range. I can't be engaged with my computer if it's 10' away from me. I can't be engaged with my target if he's out of reach of my vibrosword.

NOW...here's where it gets a little bit squirelly, and here's where I do, kinda-sorta, wish that grenades had a short range by default. Engaged does go on to say that the difference in distance between short and engaged is 'relatively minor' and I infer from the text that engaged is as much about intent as it is distance. But I think that's in conflict with the previous lines. If I haven't eaten the gum-gum fruit, I'm not engaged with something unless I am pretty much adjacent to it.

Grenades need tweaking imo. Depending on the type, a frag should have a effect radius of short while a stun, plasma, or glop I could see limiting to engaged. Throw range should be medium though on all of them.

As a side note, "engaged" can cover a good chunk of room, at least a dozenish meters in cases like blast.

Coming to EotE from Pathfinder this took me a while to get through my thick skull. I kept picturing Engaged as being the same thing as adjacent in PF and it isn't.

This is where I want to post one of those Nathan Fillian .gifs where he is at a loss for words.

I don't think that 10', or even 'good chunk of room' really jives with 'The engaged status simply indicates that two things are close enough to each other to directly interact' (bold mine).

The intent of the rules seems to be that if you can't touch it (and I'll toss in the extra word) meaningfully, it's not at engaged range. I can't be engaged with my computer if it's 10' away from me. I can't be engaged with my target if he's out of reach of my vibrosword.

NOW...here's where it gets a little bit squirelly, and here's where I do, kinda-sorta, wish that grenades had a short range by default. Engaged does go on to say that the difference in distance between short and engaged is 'relatively minor' and I infer from the text that engaged is as much about intent as it is distance. But I think that's in conflict with the previous lines. If I haven't eaten the gum-gum fruit, I'm not engaged with something unless I am pretty much adjacent to it.

I think where you are getting confused is that you are thinking of it like you would a tactical game (like Pathfinder) where each roll is one swing and each move is a discrete defined distance. Engaged does not mean that you spend the entire round right there adjacent and able to touch your opponent. It means you are close enough that you are able to step up and do so without spending a maneuver. So you and your opponent are dancing all around in that "Engaged" space probably about the size of a small room and jockeying for position sometimes right next to each other while making a blow sometimes dancing back to get out of the way of a blow, etc...

As a side note, "engaged" can cover a good chunk of room, at least a dozenish meters in cases like blast.

Coming to EotE from Pathfinder this took me a while to get through my thick skull. I kept picturing Engaged as being the same thing as adjacent in PF and it isn't.

This is where I want to post one of those Nathan Fillian .gifs where he is at a loss for words.

I don't think that 10', or even 'good chunk of room' really jives with 'The engaged status simply indicates that two things are close enough to each other to directly interact' (bold mine).

The intent of the rules seems to be that if you can't touch it (and I'll toss in the extra word) meaningfully, it's not at engaged range. I can't be engaged with my computer if it's 10' away from me. I can't be engaged with my target if he's out of reach of my vibrosword.

NOW...here's where it gets a little bit squirelly, and here's where I do, kinda-sorta, wish that grenades had a short range by default. Engaged does go on to say that the difference in distance between short and engaged is 'relatively minor' and I infer from the text that engaged is as much about intent as it is distance. But I think that's in conflict with the previous lines. If I haven't eaten the gum-gum fruit, I'm not engaged with something unless I am pretty much adjacent to it.

I think where you are getting confused is that you are thinking of it like you would a tactical game (like Pathfinder) where each roll is one swing and each move is a discrete defined distance. Engaged does not mean that you spend the entire round right there adjacent and able to touch your opponent. It means you are close enough that you are able to step up and do so without spending a maneuver. So you and your opponent are dancing all around in that "Engaged" space probably about the size of a small room and jockeying for position sometimes right next to each other while making a blow sometimes dancing back to get out of the way of a blow, etc...

Exactly!

When you go big picture Engaged is actually pretty big in most encounter scenarios, especially compared to other game systems.

So in Zilvar's case where he says if he's within 10 feet of his computer he shouldn't be engaged, he's forgetting that forth dimension of time. In EotE a round is a few minutes of time, not a few seconds . So, factoring in that it's over the course of a few minutes, walking 10 feet (say two maybe three steps) isn't a significant effort worth measuring compared to pulling his slicing tools out of his backpack and making a Computers check (unless Zilvar is a morbidly obese Hutt and it does take him a few minutes to slither 10 feet, I suppose that's possible). Now expand it out to 50 feet, and now Zilvar probably need to spend a maneuver to move to the computer.

Also I used the word "can cover" not "does cover" for a reason. The range bands will fluctuate slightly depending on the encounter. Engaged on the plains of Dantooine will probably be a dozenish meters in diameter, Engaged in a large warehouse might be about half that, and Engaged in a cantina mens room probably more like one meter (though if you're regularly getting engaged in a cantina mens room you may have other issues). But in the mens room you get into that extra situation where the rulebook talks about explosives in enclosed spaces, so the Blast quality in relation to range bands is less likely to be an issue.

I think where you are getting confused is that you are thinking of it like you would a tactical game (like Pathfinder) where each roll is one swing and each move is a discrete defined distance. Engaged does not mean that you spend the entire round right there adjacent and able to touch your opponent. It means you are close enough that you are able to step up and do so without spending a maneuver. So you and your opponent are dancing all around in that "Engaged" space probably about the size of a small room and jockeying for position sometimes right next to each other while making a blow sometimes dancing back to get out of the way of a blow, etc...

-ish...maybe.

It's more than that. The description of Engaged talks about a lot of things that do put me in the grid-based comparisons (the maneuver from short to engaged is, for example, described in almost the same terms as a d20 5' step), but it's not just that. It's what I infer as the intent and a desire for internal consistency, and I realize that makes this wholly my personal hangup , and I'm sure a big part of it is the difference in time scales.

If I throw a grenade at a Moff, and he's got that 'human shield' ability, his bodyguards can't be 10' away from him. They've got to be close enough that he can grab them by the collar and drag them into the line of fire.

If I throw a grenade at a computer terminal to stop the slicer from getting at critical data, it'll get him, but not his buddy who can't reach the terminal, because he didn't choose to be engaged with it, even though he could be just about as close.

That last is a part of the issue too, that I have with using engaged for blast radius. All of the range bands are well defined and descriptive, but engaged is the least definative of the bunch. Engaged deliberately overlaps with short but is more restrictive and the overall effect is largely dependent on player choice in an odd fashion. 'Yeah..I'll watch Slicer's back, I'll stand nearby, but a out of reach of the console so I don't get in his away.' 'It blows up!' 'Woot, I'm safe!'

That last is a part of the issue too, that I have with using engaged for blast radius. All of the range bands are well defined and descriptive, but engaged is the least definative of the bunch. Engaged deliberately overlaps with short but is more restrictive and the overall effect is largely dependent on player choice in an odd fashion. 'Yeah..I'll watch Slicer's back, I'll stand nearby, but a out of reach of the console so I don't get in his away.' 'It blows up!' 'Woot, I'm safe!'

That is where I look at Engaged differently. I don't think of Engaged as "touching the console". I think of Engaged as being near enough to take a few steps and be able to touch the console. So if you are near enough to meaningfully watch the Slicer's back you are probably in "Engaged" range of the computer console.

I've come to look at it like being in the octagon in an MMA fight. The fighters start out at short range and use a maneuver to close to "Engaged". For much of a stand up fight the fighters have a couple of body widths distance between the two of them unless they are darting in for a strike. You can watch the general area the fighters are dancing around in and get a pretty good idea of what the "Engaged" range is supposed to be like.

Of course, as you've said this is pretty subjective stuff and that is just how I personally, and my game group, looks at it. Others may have alternate opinions or views.

To use a less static example, in your average boxing or MMA match, both fighters are pretty much Engaged for most of the fight. There is enough room - barely - for them to disengage into Short range when called for. That's actually a fairly wide area

Also keep in mind that "Engaged" gets larger the more participants are involved. All the participants in a cantina brawl could be considered engaged with one another, but the amount of space required for two sentients is a lot less than if the whole place is fighting.

As has been pointed out, the descriptions are meant to be cinematic, not literal.

Edit: Doh, just saw that PatientWolf just made the same analogy I did. That's what I get for formulating my response before finishing the last post.

"engaged" for me is close enough to touch without reaching too hard. Tho i can make exceptions that sometimes close can be concidered engaged even tho they are not engaged.

To use a less static example, in your average boxing or MMA match, both fighters are pretty much Engaged for most of the fight. There is enough room - barely - for them to disengage into Short range when called for. That's actually a fairly wide area

Also keep in mind that "Engaged" gets larger the more participants are involved. All the participants in a cantina brawl could be considered engaged with one another, but the amount of space required for two sentients is a lot less than if the whole place is fighting.

As has been pointed out, the descriptions are meant to be cinematic, not literal.

Engaged is still almost entirely a matter of intent and not distance. Someone, be it PC or NPC, has to make the choice to turn 'short' into 'engaged'.

If I walk into a room, I'm short range to the bed and the computer terminal on the other wall (again, because I cannot interact with it without moving). Moving to engaged on the computer doesn't automatically put me at engaged with the bed even though they are within that same distance, because it's on the opposite wall and I cannot (meaningfully) interact with it while I'm interacting with the computer. That doesn't seem to be your definition of engaged, and I'm trying to reconcile that with the description of the range band. I am not convinced that the time aspect is relevant because we're not even (necessarily) talking about combat rounds here. This is at narrative scale, and the times where it's still important to know where someone is (like..when there's a grenade under the bed rigged to blow...)

'Short' is explicitly a matter of distance (the distance two people can comfortably talk without raising their voices...a few meters). 'Engaged' is not. Engaged could be as big as short range (a rancor could be engaged with you from what would be medium range to you, as long as those arms are...) or as small as intimate contact. Engaged can (and probably should) be enforced (such as two people squeezed into a broom closet), but that doesn't change my fundamental issue with grenades being based on engaged rather than short...and that is that engaged reads as, primarily, a matter of intent rather than range.

I just don't get that from the text at all. The description in the book uses phrases like "Two character engaged with each other are in very close proximity", "Engaged is also used to indicate a person is close enough to an item to use it", "The best way to consider engaged is as a subcategory of short range." , "The engaged status simply indicates that two things are close enough to directly interact." Proximity, close enough, short range, those are all terms of distance not intent.

My interpretation of all of that is that Engaged is close enough to directly interact with minimal movement. In other words some slight adjustment in position or a step or two may be required but movement so minimal as not to warrant a maneuver.

I don't know how many are familiar with Pathfinder but I'll use that to try and explain how I view it. In Pathfinder each turn you have a Standard Action and a Move Action. A move action allows you to move your full movement (usually 30' for Medium sized PCs with no armor). However, you can take a 5' step that doesn't count as using your move action, you just move a single 5' square in any direction. So to compare that to EotE; Short Range, in my opinion, is anything you have to spend your entire move to reach while Engaged is anything you can reach by just taking a 5' step.

I just don't get that from the text at all. The description in the book uses phrases like "Two character engaged with each other are in very close proximity", "Engaged is also used to indicate a person is close enough to an item to use it", "The best way to consider engaged is as a subcategory of short range." , "The engaged status simply indicates that two things are close enough to directly interact." Proximity, close enough, short range, those are all terms of distance not intent.

My interpretation of all of that is that Engaged is close enough to directly interact with minimal movement. In other words some slight adjustment in position or a step or two may be required but movement so minimal as not to warrant a maneuver.

I don't know how many are familiar with Pathfinder but I'll use that to try and explain how I view it. In Pathfinder each turn you have a Standard Action and a Move Action. A move action allows you to move your full movement (usually 30' for Medium sized PCs with no armor). However, you can take a 5' step that doesn't count as using your move action, you just move a single 5' square in any direction. So to compare that to EotE; Short Range, in my opinion, is anything you have to spend your entire move to reach while Engaged is anything you can reach by just taking a 5' step.

I'm quite familiar with pathfinder (amusingly have the paizo forums open in another window ), and I think we've got a good common understanding of terms.

The difference is the line 'Thus, spending a maneuver to move to engage someone or something is as much a matter of moving into combat cautiously enough to avoid receiving a blow as it is moving a physical distance.' Any typos in that are totally my fault.

The maneuver from short to engaged, as I read that line, IS the EotE equivalent of a 5' step. And just like with d20 rulesets, you can move adjacent to (or really, really close to) a target without that 5' step. EotE just doesn't penalize you for it.

Back to my example in my last post, from what some of the other posters have said, I believe that many people would rule that a person engaged with the computer is also engaged with the bed, because they view engaged as a distinct range band that covers a distinct distance ( in your case, close enough to interact with with minimal movement ). And that's true. But it's also true for short range. Especially since we are to 'Consider engaged as a subcategory of short range.' and 'the difference in distance is relatively minor.'

It is the combination of those things that lead me to consider engaged as a question of intent as much as distance. Someone has to make the decision to be in interaction range (standing at the keyboard and typing, rather than just next to the desk...close enough to lie down on the bed, rather than close enough to run and jump on it like a 4 year old...close enough to flip the light switch rather than on the other side of the door). Over the course of a few minutes, those distances might not be important, but it is important when something happens.

I've got Paizo forums open as well lol!

Yep I think we pretty much understand each other's point of view and we look at it a bit differently. I don't think either way is particularly wrong as long as it works for our group. Since the range bands are intentionally vague and imprecise (unlike PF) I don't think either could be said to be definitively "right" or definitively "wrong. Which happens to be one of the things I love so much about EotE. I get very frustrated on the Paizo "Rules Questions" forum lol.

I've got Paizo forums open as well lol!

Yep I think we pretty much understand each other's point of view and we look at it a bit differently. I don't think either way is particularly wrong as long as it works for our group. Since the range bands are intentionally vague and imprecise (unlike PF) I don't think either could be said to be definitively "right" or definitively "wrong. Which happens to be one of the things I love so much about EotE. I get very frustrated on the Paizo "Rules Questions" forum lol.

OMG yes.

'can we get an official definition of 'wield'?' indeed.

I agree the rules for blast are wonky. So, however your group wants to define engaged is probably cool. Without a map it's up to the GM to decide how close people are standing together anyway.

Speaking of Demolitionist and explostions, let me share my party's first experience from last night. One of our player's kid joined our group and just wanted to blow stuff up so I directed him towards Demolitionist. After helping with char gen, he ended up with two talents: Selective Detonation and Powerful Blast. When his first attack came up I wanted to help him showcase his abilities and his character so I had him shoot the explosive arrow (Don't judge, the kid's into archery and medium range for a bit less damage is a fair tradeoff) at one of our players who was engaged with a minion group. (That player always seems to include party members in his fireballs in those other games, so throwing grenades in his direction is a fair trade off.) Well, the kid missed the shot but got four successes. Exactly what he needed to set off the blast and miss the ally. The Powerful Blast upped the damage just enough to up the damage and crack through the soak to drop a couple of them. It was a perfect first roll to introduce a new character and the abilities.

So, if you want to make sure you can explode a bunch of guys, then toss a grenade at the melee guy who just waded into combat with a minion group. Best way to make within engaged range is to actually engage them first.

While on the topic, do successes add to blast damage?

Yes. Successes add to Blast damage.

Yes. Successes add to Blast damage.

To the OP, sounds like you need to unlearn what you have learned. D20 games are not your friend when looking to make sense of game rules in EotE. Try to approach the rules like you've never gamed before. At least that's what worked with me.

My suggestion, if it helps, is to get completely comfortable with the indefinite but functional measure of time and space present in the structured gameplay rules.

Yes, that's a lot of S's? Ses? S'? Not sure on the that spelling and punctuation......