1) It appears that an additional Boost die when facing a single opponent in Engaged range by itself is considered too powerful; otherwise it would already be written this way.

However, It is also entirely possible you are correct and through initial testing they found it was a wee overpowering.

In this case I'd prefer it flip to one of Dono's suggestions: DT removes a Setback when engaged with a solo foe*. Perhaps even becoming Ranked and replacing Defensive Training in the Tree.

In this way the removal of multiple Setback when engaging a solo opponent would help to carrot the Narrative more positively, without feeling like a lodestone on the character sheet.

* As not every solo foe is going to have Defenses, not every target will offer Setback Dice, however the more powerful and the more important "set piece" encounters will.

2) A penalty that occurs irregardless of the Character's action is inappropriate for a Talent. No talents do this; I'm of the opinion that none should, because this breaks the implied contract, "When you spend XP, you are enhancing your character."

3) Ideally, the Talent offers a character an option, such as:

3a) "When engaged with a single opponent, you may..."

3b) "When engaged with a single opponent, gain..., but when engaged with multiple opponents, you may instead suffer X penalty for Y benefit."

3c) "When engaged with a single opponent, you may gain..., but if you do, suffer penalty X for time Y"

The talent is for that consummate dueler. The one that wants to be that little bit better than his opponent. It is in the one form that focuses on dueling. The designers obviously felt that just handing out a boost die was either too much or too boring and decided to make the talent a little more thought-worthy. And considering this thread it is.

I too don't understand why threads that are intended to help this product become the best it can seem to devolve into ad-hominem attacks because of simple disagreement.

But that goes with EVERY SINGLE PERK you can think of in the game.

How is the GM going to "screw me" with Utinni? Tinkerer? Resist Disarm? Grit? Enduring?

I could list every single other Talent, but instead: Name one other Talent that can be "screwed" in this manner.

Edit: I'm working under the assumption that the setback die fulfills a purpose, it's meant to nudge you into fighting a certain way that is very apropos to the form, I've yet to see a suggestion that has a similar result and is not a teensy bit overpowered.

Raykaydos has made the same suggestion multiple times that is both not "overpowering" and keeps the "fight one on one" flavor. The only flaw with that suggestion is that it is a tad more complex than simply stripping the Setback die.

You conveniently cut the part that makes clear I'm not talking about talents at all (note that I'm using the word perks). But since you ask so nicely - Utinni! removes a setback die. A jerk GM never gives you that setback die after you bought it, never gives you strain after you bought Resolve (and then drops droideka with houseruled indestructible shields in front of you after he made sure you didn't bring grenades.) That's the kind of adversarial GM that makes it impossible to use Duelist's Training because he will always engage you with multiple opponents - in narrow corridors where you can't maneuver, of course. I'm so sorry that's the contingency you have to plan for.

As for Raykaydos' suggestion: It's way too strong. This tree already is a power gamer's wet dream. A 10xp Talent giving you an extra maneuver (extremely powerful) in a situation where you should be at a disadvantage - as a solution to a problem that is arguably not a problem at all - the only thing I can say to that is "I can see where you're coming from, but not at my table."

Please continue discussing alternate possibilities for Duelist's Training. Please bear the fluff of Makashi in mind:

...

2) A penalty that occurs irregardless of the Character's action is inappropriate for a Talent. No talents do this; I'm of the opinion that none should, because this breaks the implied contract, "When you spend XP, you are enhancing your character."

...

See, that's the strange thing about this discussion.

The black die does not "occur irregardless of the Character's action."

You guys know that when you're engaged with multiple opponents, you don't have to make Melee or Lightsaber checks, right? You can...

• Use the Force: Bind one of them (choking him is always a plus)
• Use the Force: Move one of them away, painfully
• Use the Force: Unleash (channel your anger about having a theoretical setback die that you never actually roll)
• Make a Brawl check
• Maneuver to disengage
• do other awesome things I haven't thought about.

None of which will incur a setback die! And even if you absolutely have to lightsaber your opponent and the maximum of one failure from the black die screws you, you still get a good Feint out of it.

Also, it is much more likely to be one on one than a gang-bang, so the boost die is more likely to apply more often than the setback die.

This obviously varies from group to group. In my games the players are often outnumbered, and their need to reduce enemy numbers quickly means that a melee fighter is normally engaged with multiple hostiles. The only time this talent would not be a penalty in one way or another would be when the enemy is down to their last few, and the fight is over already (unless it's a Nemesis, of course).

Other than that, I stand by what I said: The talent is broken, and needs to be fixed. That has been my thesis the entire thread and will not change simply because you say, "That's your opinion." I have stated why the talent is broken, and no one has challenged those points in any meaningful way.

Please continue discussing alternate possibilities for Duelist's Training. Please bear the fluff of Makashi in mind:

...

2) A penalty that occurs irregardless of the Character's action is inappropriate for a Talent. No talents do this; I'm of the opinion that none should, because this breaks the implied contract, "When you spend XP, you are enhancing your character."

...

See, that's the strange thing about this discussion.

The black die does not "occur irregardless of the Character's action."

You guys know that when you're engaged with multiple opponents, you don't have to make Melee or Lightsaber checks, right? You can...

• Use the Force: Bind one of them (choking him is always a plus)
• Use the Force: Move one of them away, painfully
• Use the Force: Unleash (channel your anger about having a theoretical setback die that you never actually roll)
• Make a Brawl check
• Maneuver to disengage
• do other awesome things I haven't thought about.

None of which will incur a setback die! And even if you absolutely have to lightsaber your opponent and the maximum of one failure from the black die screws you, you still get a good Feint out of it.

It is a lightsaber talent, in a lightsaber talent tree. It is counterproductive that it should have a talent that reduces the character's efficacy with a lightsaber and causes them to do something else.

That is a valid opinion. I just wanted to point out that you're making a false statement when you say that "the penalty occurs irregardless of a character's action" or somesuch. The penalty is contingent on the player's choice of attacking despite being engaged with multiple opponents. Nothing forces him to do so.

You conveniently cut the part that makes clear I'm not talking about talents at all (note that I'm using the word perks).

But since you ask so nicely - Utinni! removes a setback die. A jerk GM never gives you that setback die after you bought it, never gives you strain after you bought Resolve...

(and then drops droideka with houseruled indestructible shields in front of you after he made sure you didn't bring grenades.) That's the kind of adversarial GM that makes it impossible to use Duelist's Training because he will always engage you with multiple opponents - in narrow corridors where you can't maneuver, of course.

You have a choice, help in finding solutions to what Scald and I (and a few others) see as a problem or continue being obstructionist and unhelpful.

As for Raykaydos' suggestion:

Unless there is another suggestion I've missed?

This tree already is a power gamer's wet dream.

A 10xp Talent giving you an extra maneuver (extremely powerful) in a situation where you should be at a disadvantage - as a solution to a problem that is arguably not a problem at all - the only thing I can say to that is "I can see where you're coming from, but not at my table."

Is that terribly overpowered? I do not agree. I can see it's advantage and drawback.

This obviously varies from group to group. In my games the players are often outnumbered, and their need to reduce enemy numbers quickly means that a melee fighter is normally engaged with multiple hostiles. The only time this talent would not be a penalty in one way or another would be when the enemy is down to their last few, and the fight is over already (unless it's a Nemesis, of course).

Other than that, I stand by what I said: The talent is broken, and needs to be fixed. That has been my thesis the entire thread and will not change simply because you say, "That's your opinion." I have stated why the talent is broken, and no one has challenged those points in any meaningful way.

Obviously it's going to vary from group to group. And if your group is facing multiple opponents on a regular basis, maybe taking a a one on one dueling talent shouldn't be a priority, or even the Makashi Duelist tree.

None of your points need to be challenged since you do not have any agreement that the talent is broken in the first place. It's difficult to "fix" something you do not see as broken in the first place, although people have made suggestions. Personally, I think you should just drop the setback die for your game and be done with it. The biggest issue I've seen in this thread is that horrendous setback die. Apparently it severely gimps you if you take this talent and you will never be any good. Drop it and be done with it.

None of your points need to be challenged since you do not have any agreement that the talent is broken in the first place.

Thus the thread is for generating ideas and to a small degree, awareness.

The biggest issue I've seen in this thread is that horrendous setback die. Apparently it severely gimps you if you take this talent and you will never be any good.

None of your points need to be challenged since you do not have any agreement that the talent is broken in the first place. It's difficult to "fix" something you do not see as broken in the first place, although people have made suggestions.

Personally, I think you should just drop the setback die for your game and be done with it. The biggest issue I've seen in this thread is that horrendous setback die. Apparently it severely gimps you if you take this talent and you will never be any good.

Drop it and be done with it.

None of your points need to be challenged since you do not have any agreement that the talent is broken in the first place. It's difficult to "fix" something you do not see as broken in the first place, although people have made suggestions.

Since when is agreement necessary for discussion? The points outlined are evidence toward describing it being broken. To say it isn't worth addressing these points because it's not broken is just begging the question.

The only points I've seen basically amount to I don't like it, this hasn't been done before and it gives a penalty, which brings me to this point...

Personally, I think you should just drop the setback die for your game and be done with it. The biggest issue I've seen in this thread is that horrendous setback die. Apparently it severely gimps you if you take this talent and you will never be any good.

I've seen this strawman many times through this thread -- the only ones arguing this are those who believe the RAW are fine.

I keep seeing this as an issue brought up by those feeling it is broken, the fact that it gives a penalty in the form of a setback die. I am just responding to what has been stated.

New and different talents are going to show up. Nobody says you have to like them. Unless they are a talent blocking the way to other talents or they are mandatory in some other fashion, some people will like them and some will not. The former situations are definitely not something we want, though, but FFG seems to have done fairly well in that department.

Now at the end of the day, they may or may not make a change. I'm easy either way. But just as some want the developers to be aware of their position, so do others want them to be aware of theirs. That being that they feel the talent is fine as is.

Drop it and be done with it.

This I agree with -- it looks like we've been exhausted of useful suggestions and this thread will just continue to degenerate from here. FFG has plenty of material here from which to make their decision upon.

Yeah, probably just as well to lock the thread and just say "Okay, all that can be said has been said. We'll take it under advisement."

The "it's broken!" crowd is pretty much us a broken record, as they ignore anything that goes contrary to their stance that somehow Duelist's Training completely cripples the character, even though the setback is situational and has been shown to be quite easy to mitigate provided one's GM isn't a flaming @$$hole.

And as they can't actually come up with anything original, pretty much futile for those folks that think it works fine to state their opinion. It's much the same as trying to have an engaging and intelligent conversation with ErikB about how Force user PCs shouldn't automatically be god-like in power compared to PCs from the other games.

Hey Scald, and Sporkley, and anyone else I'm forgetting who is being helpful...

How does this sound:

I'd prefer it flip to one of Dono's suggestions: DT removes a Setback when engaged with a solo foe*. Perhaps even becoming Ranked and replacing Defensive Training in the Tree.

In this way the removal of multiple Setback when engaging a solo opponent would help to carrot the Narrative more positively, without feeling like a lodestone on the character sheet.

* As not every solo foe is going to have Defenses, not every target will offer Setback Dice, however the more powerful [foes] and the more important "set piece" encounters will.

EDIT: Also by removing Defensive Training it reduces the Makashi's ability to stand against multiple foes, making Maneuvering to engage solo's even more attractive.

Setback removal fits a bit with this:

The "contentious opportunity" was based around recognizing and exploiting an opening in the opponent's defense before swiftly moving to strike the exposed enemy

Probably shouldn't rank it though. Most RAW enemies, including the Inquisitors and the Fallen Master, tend to cap out at 1 Melee Defense. Obviously there's instances where more setbacks can be tossed in, but eh, it seems a bit too much.

It would be more thematic if Duelist's Training had a condition of 'only when using the Makashi Technique talent (substituting Presence for Brawn). Perhaps indicating that attacking with your prodigious presence is less effective against crowds who can bolster one another.

Aki

It would be more thematic if Duelist's Training had a condition of 'only when using the Makashi Technique talent (substituting Presence for Brawn). Perhaps indicating that attacking with your prodigious presence is less effective against crowds who can bolster one another.

Simple, brilliant. Simply brilliant.

That is a valid opinion. I just wanted to point out that you're making a false statement when you say that "the penalty occurs irregardless of a character's action" or somesuch. The penalty is contingent on the player's choice of attacking despite being engaged with multiple opponents. Nothing forces him to do so.

Yes, I keep having difficulty expressing what I mean here.

I mean, that unlike other talents which impose a penalty when the player chooses to do something, this one imposes a penalty when circumstance does something.

If a talent generates a penalty, it should be a direct result of the character's choice and action. I choose to activate Auto-Fire, therefore I increase the difficulty. I choose to dodge, therefore I take strain. That sort of thing.

This is "irrespective of what you are doing, when multiple enemies engage you, a penalty applies." That's what makes it wrong.

This obviously varies from group to group. In my games the players are often outnumbered, and their need to reduce enemy numbers quickly means that a melee fighter is normally engaged with multiple hostiles. The only time this talent would not be a penalty in one way or another would be when the enemy is down to their last few, and the fight is over already (unless it's a Nemesis, of course).

Other than that, I stand by what I said: The talent is broken, and needs to be fixed. That has been my thesis the entire thread and will not change simply because you say, "That's your opinion." I have stated why the talent is broken, and no one has challenged those points in any meaningful way.

Obviously it's going to vary from group to group. And if your group is facing multiple opponents on a regular basis, maybe taking a a one on one dueling talent shouldn't be a priority, or even the Makashi Duelist tree.

None of your points need to be challenged since you do not have any agreement that the talent is broken in the first place. It's difficult to "fix" something you do not see as broken in the first place, although people have made suggestions. Personally, I think you should just drop the setback die for your game and be done with it. The biggest issue I've seen in this thread is that horrendous setback die. Apparently it severely gimps you if you take this talent and you will never be any good. Drop it and be done with it.

Except, you know, if the character is statted for Presence, what other Lightsaber form is he going to do?

Also, I need to stress, this is about a change to the Rules, which are currently in Beta for vetting. This is not about house rules.

I have made several points, using as precise a language as I can, and these points have not been rebuffed in a convincing way. Counter-arguments to these points have essentially been "nu-uh!" and name-calling.

Sometimes I have not been as clear as I need to be, despite my efforts. I will attempt to be more clear.

It would be more thematic if Duelist's Training had a condition of 'only when using the Makashi Technique talent (substituting Presence for Brawn). Perhaps indicating that attacking with your prodigious presence is less effective against crowds who can bolster one another.

Simple, brilliant. Simply brilliant.

Terrible, simply terrible. Now you're likely trading a black die for a reduction in characteristic. That's even worse!

Also, I repeat myself again. Which I seem to have to do.

Hey Scald, and Sporkley, and anyone else I'm forgetting who is being helpful...

How does this sound:

I'd prefer it flip to one of Dono's suggestions: DT removes a Setback when engaged with a solo foe*. Perhaps even becoming Ranked and replacing Defensive Training in the Tree.

In this way the removal of multiple Setback when engaging a solo opponent would help to carrot the Narrative more positively, without feeling like a lodestone on the character sheet.

* As not every solo foe is going to have Defenses, not every target will offer Setback Dice, however the more powerful [foes] and the more important "set piece" encounters will.

EDIT: Also by removing Defensive Training it reduces the Makashi's ability to stand against multiple foes, making Maneuvering to engage solo's even more attractive.

It could work. I'm not thrilled with the idea of training Defensive Training for another rank of the stated version of Duelist's Training, but we've seen worse.

Frankly I think we're all getting pretty drained and punchy. I'd like to think that we've made whatever point we might possibly make, and it's up to FFG from here. Hopefully they can extract signal from the noise.

On the other hand there's always the chance that tomorrow someone will come up with an awesome solution and we'll all slap our heads and say, "Why didn't we think of that?!"

If someone has a chance, it might be helpful to have a post reviewing the best options. There was one a few pages back... I doubt things have changed much since then.

I'd also like to thank everyone who's put so much time and effort into this thread. This includes those who think the talent is fine as it is. I know Donovan's put a lot of time and effort into rolling dice for us, for example. Even if we disagree, at least we're thinking about it and trying to improve ourselves and the game.

Edit: The summary, by Evileeyore:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/120654-lets-fix-duelists-training/page-7#entry1276428

There are probably other entries that got lost along the way. Oh, and you can pretty much forget the one I wrote in my original post, which is pretty silly really.

It would be more thematic if Duelist's Training had a condition of 'only when using the Makashi Technique talent (substituting Presence for Brawn). Perhaps indicating that attacking with your prodigious presence is less effective against crowds who can bolster one another.

Simple, brilliant. Simply brilliant.

Terrible, simply terrible. Now you're likely trading a black die for a reduction in characteristic. That's even worse!

Also, I repeat myself again. Which I seem to have to do.

No. You are enhancing a talent you most likely took to get there to begin with. The enhancement, if you choose to purchase it, just has a thematic catch. As the tree is structured now, I don't really see anyone taking Duelist Training without Makashi Technique. The option I proposed has little impact on the tree and I believe retains the intent of Duelist Training. Nothing would keep you from using Presence for the rest of the tree or most other talents for that matter.

PS: Feel free to keep repeating yourself. It is entertaining, if not productive.

As I said before, if the setback die was never part of the talent, no one would complain that it was too powerful or too weak. No one would be disappointed to see it stay the same in the final product. And if anyone did, the same people arguing that the setback die isn't a big deal now would probably be arguing that the talent is just fine providing a boost die with no other drawback or benefit.

If FFG changes the talent to remove the setback die, raise your hand if you would house-rule it to keep the setback die? If you wouldn't vote to add it to the talent if it weren't there in the first place, why would you vote to keep it?

As I said before, if the setback die was never part of the talent, no one would complain that it was too powerful or too weak. No one would be disappointed to see it stay the same in the final product. And if anyone did, the same people arguing that the setback die isn't a big deal now would probably be arguing that the talent is just fine providing a boost die with no other drawback or benefit.

If FFG changes the talent to remove the setback die, raise your hand if you would house-rule it to keep the setback die? If you wouldn't vote to add it to the talent if it weren't there in the first place, why would you vote to keep it?

If the setback was never part of the talent and then FFG decided to add it, we would want to know the reasoning behind it. Just as we would want to know the reasoning behind taking it away. I don't houserule things unless I find them to be interfering in some way. And from the sound of things this was a contentious issue within the FFG developers as it is with people here. So now they know and can make a further decision. Whether or not they decide to keep it or change has little impact on me at this point. It is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of the game.

I do like making most lightsaber tree active talents (especially ones in line with the form talent) to be dependent on using the stat substitution.