I haven't thrown a marauder at my players, but I did throw a pair of heavy combat droids with Soak 8. The party chewed through them pretty quickly with carbines.

How is anyone getting Soak 8 at character creation? No starting character can have any characteristic higher thank 5. The cheapest Soak 2 armor is Padded at 500 credits - no small price at character creation. A Brawn 5 Marauder will start the game at Soak 7, and, unless they take on more Obligation at the GM's discretion, they have no weapons or equipment except the Padded Armor.

I can't imagine a player making that choice.

If anyone is letting a player begin at Brawn 6 or giving them Implant Armor at character creation, that's an issue that has nothing to do with the RAW.

How is anyone getting Soak 8 at character creation?

You're missing something very simple and at the same time very important:

No one is talking about a starting Marauder needing to be challenged. Not even a middle range Marauder.

People have been talking about a late game Marauder. A late game Soak Machine.

And regardless, go ahead and look at a starting Soak Machine: Our Trando BH started with Soak 6 and 18 WT. Twice the Soak of everyone else and 1.5 times the Wounds. Out the gate he was 3 times as hard to drop as the next most durable character and 5 to 6 times harder than the weakest. And things only got worse as he grew in EXP.

If we're talking late game, then everybody has had opportunities to increase Soak and WT. Players that elect to pass up those opportunities in order to push some other aspect to 11 are just as much to blame for overspecialization as the player of Soaky the Bear.

Soaky the Bear.

Unequivocal declaration: Happy Daze wins.

How is anyone getting Soak 8 at character creation?

You're missing something very simple and at the same time very important:

No one is talking about a starting Marauder needing to be challenged. Not even a middle range Marauder.

People have been talking about a late game Marauder. A late game Soak Machine.

And regardless, go ahead and look at a starting Soak Machine: Our Trando BH started with Soak 6 and 18 WT. Twice the Soak of everyone else and 1.5 times the Wounds. Out the gate he was 3 times as hard to drop as the next most durable character and 5 to 6 times harder than the weakest. And things only got worse as he grew in EXP.

Trying to do the math here but if that BH started like that trandoshians start with 3 brawn, 12+Br WT, and 90exp

So uping his brawn to 5 would put him at 17 wounds and 5 soak (+1 soak for gear I'm guessing) but that wouldn't explain where the other wounds came from unless he went 4 brawn and then invested in Toughened from gadgeteer but then he'd need +2 soak armor to hit the claimed soak (and mind you 6 is not even remotely difficult for most pistols to overcome let alone heavy weaponry).

So yeah, harder to drop but really not that much harder given he's just as succeptable to crits as everyone else, and seeing how he invested his exp especially vulnerable to strain which if not given by enemies can quickly end him through obligation, threats rolled, and second manuevers taken for 2 strain.

Let's not forget you've been given several ways to deal with this kind of player without cheesing it out. The most simple and common way I would see occur is, as I've given time and time again: Minions.

Then you have penetration, disarming, entangling, damaging the armor with advantages, using detiny points to make enemies hit harder, boost dice granted to foes against him by spending advantages if he really is a big threat (and if he's not having large soak and being unthreatening means he's no longer really a problem), spending triumphs to upgrade later enemy dice rolls, using strain damage, etc, etc, etc.

Using most of these over and over every encounter could get old, but you have far more than enough to not have to use the same method often and are fully capable of switching up how you handle such a player in combat.

The reason I harsh on the minions option so much is minions are common and not hard to defeat and best yet using that methods gives you a justifiable non-meta game feeling method to take down a large more powerful foe without bringing that same level of damage/accuracy to the weaker combat specced characters.

No one is talking about a starting Marauder needing to be challenged. Not even a middle range Marauder.

People have been talking about a late game Marauder. A late game Soak Machine.

Okay, so a 'late game' Soak machine? That's a problem, but the Mercenary Soldier with 5 Agility and 5 Ranged (Light) dual-wielding heavy blaster pistols isn't? Everything is a problem late game, in balance terms, so if this is truly where the problem is, then you just need to suck it up. Late game characters are beasts in pretty much every RPG system ever.

That's good. He's going to need those Wounds and Soak, since a Marauder is typically going to spend a round or two every encounter just moving toward the enemy while he gets shot at. How long do you think a Melee specialization would last in this system if they didn't have a good Soak and high Wounds?

I think they would last about a round.

All this discussion makes me think of one thing.

"Have you got any idea how many anonymous henchmen I've killed over the years?... Why don't you just fall down?"-Nigel Powers

With powerful characters, the game is different. At their power level the are notorious, so when they see The Seven-Foot Mowing Machine, they know its time to run and comeback with the AT-ST, the rocket launcher or just fall down.

Everything is a problem late game, in balance terms, so if this is truly where the problem is, then you just need to suck it up. Late game characters are beasts in pretty much every RPG system ever.

Something many here are missing, it's trivially easy to balance around Mr. One-Shot-One-Kill, you can just pour more enemies on (high Wounds, low damage enemies) and keep him shooting fish in a barrel the whole combat.

It's that with a Soak Machine, you have to pour more damage on the party and either contrive some way in which the extra damage is only pouring on the Soak Machine (which gets boring fast) or split him from the herd (which also gets boring fast), or you risk dropping the whole party.

With extra resilient enemies, pretty much every one who can toss some damage out can get involved in whittling them down. With extra damage enemies, everyone but Soaky Bear is running away almost immediately (or bleeding out in a gutter, alone, unloved...).

As an Aside: Something that might help fix Marauder for me would be to make Enduring not stack with Armor. This would mean Soaky the Bear can hit 9 (naked) or 10 in full Armor (Instead of 12).

Toss that alongside the suggestion of making Base Soak equal to Racial Brawn... and Soaky Bear tops out around 6 naked or 9 with armor. Everyone else would be topping out around 4* at the low end and 6-7 at the medium end.

* 1 Base Soak + Laminate Superior Armor.

** 1-2 Base + LamSupArmor and some Talents.

I'd have to shave some damage off most weapons (I'm thinking 2 damage)... and the Soak Machine BH is still going to out Soak everyone else, but he's more "in range" now with next tier. In our game the SoakFace would have dropped to a 6-7 soak (instead of 10), and everyone else would have been 5, 3, 2 (the 3 dropped from 4, everyone else stays the same). So at least the next most "deadly" character would have been on par to step up if he dropped to "bad rolls" (instead of it being a drop from 10 Soak to 5 Soak when the BH dropped).

No one is talking about a starting Marauder needing to be challenged. Not even a middle range Marauder.

People have been talking about a late game Marauder. A late game Soak Machine.

Okay, so a 'late game' Soak machine? That's a problem, but the Mercenary Soldier with 5 Agility and 5 Ranged (Light) dual-wielding heavy blaster pistols isn't? Everything is a problem late game, in balance terms, so if this is truly where the problem is, then you just need to suck it up. Late game characters are beasts in pretty much every RPG system ever.

I'd agree that late game Soak and late game blaster are both "problems". The difference is the type of problems that they are.

With a high offense, the PC kills everything too quick. The fix is to bring in more bad guys or bad guys with better defences. This challenges the PCs, but the risk of a TPK is limited. Especially if the extra bad guys are brought in as waves, so if the party is getting wiped out the GM can choose to not bring in extras. It seems easier to handle when things start going poorly for the PCs.

With a high soak, the easy answer is bigger firepower to threaten and challenge that PC. The problem is that if the soak guy goes down, the rest of the party could easily get a TPK. They aren't equiped to take on the heavy firepower that someone with twice the soak and wounds could take on. It feels more contrived for the guy with the big gun to go, "well, I took down the Marauder, might as will wander away from this fight and not shoot my gun anymore at those other PCs."

And regardless, go ahead and look at a starting Soak Machine: Our Trando BH started with Soak 6 and 18 WT. Twice the Soak of everyone else and 1.5 times the Wounds. Out the gate he was 3 times as hard to drop as the next most durable character and 5 to 6 times harder than the weakest. And things only got worse as he grew in EXP.

That's good. He's going to need those Wounds and Soak, since a Marauder is typically going to spend a round or two every encounter just moving toward the enemy while he gets shot at. How long do you think a Melee specialization would last in this system if they didn't have a good Soak and high Wounds?

I think they would last about a round.

I bet the game design was thinking exactly this. Start more encounters at long or medium ranges. Make the Marauder waste a turn getter to the bad guys so that his soak is helpful and he can get dingged up before killing all the baddies. One of the many tools in the GMs toolbelt.

Or just let him be Soaky the bear for most times. Only using contrivances once in a while to shake things up for him. These can come in a variety of flavors from pirce/breach weapons to entanglement to dump stats to whatever piques your interest. This only becomes a problem when you try to challenge Soaky every combat instead of letting him play the character he made.

I keep seeing people reiterate the line that goes sort of like: what would beat the Marauder would TPK everyone else.

Why do you think this?

• A Minion group with Melee weapons and Talents might bring the Marauder down. The rest of the group should have no problem kiting these guys into a blaster killing ground.
• Is the Marauder going to do no damage to the enemy which knocks him out of the fight? Surely, if the Marauder is as damage-resistant as some say, he would be able to give the party enough time to lethally wound the adversary, then finish it off in the few rounds after the Marauder is out-of-action.
• Is the Marauder the only PC in the group that can do anything in combat? Everyone ignores the Heavy, but a good Heavy needs a high Brawn and can be quite durable. Plus, they're doing loads more damage than even the most min-maxed Marauder can fantasize about. What about the Bounty Hunter? Surely they're not kitted out just with a high Streetwise and Knowledge: Underworld?

Finally, I've yet to see or hear about a total-party-kill in EotE. Heck, I've yet to hear about an actual player character death at all. If someone takes enough Wounds to exceed their Threshold, they don't just die. This is not D&D. They only die if they get one of the Critical Injuries that, literally, says that they die. It's rare, and it's supposed to be.

If the entire group takes enough Wounds to exceed each PC's Threshold, the campaign isn't suddenly over. The PCs are just unconscious and, since this is Star Wars, captured. The campaign is hardly over, so throwing something powerful enough to pound the Marauder into dust is not a big deal. Sure, it might knock out the rest of the party after the Marauder is down.

So freaking what?

You guys are stressing out about a problem that does not exist in this system.

Again, this is not D&D, Gurps, Hero Systems, or, and most pointedly, Hackmaster.

I keep seeing people reiterate the line that goes sort of like: what would beat the Marauder would TPK everyone else.

Why do you think this?

• A Minion group with Melee weapons and Talents might bring the Marauder down. The rest of the group should have no problem kiting these guys into a blaster killing ground.
• Is the Marauder going to do no damage to the enemy which knocks him out of the fight? Surely, if the Marauder is as damage-resistant as some say, he would be able to give the party enough time to lethally wound the adversary, then finish it off in the few rounds after the Marauder is out-of-action.
• Is the Marauder the only PC in the group that can do anything in combat? Everyone ignores the Heavy, but a good Heavy needs a high Brawn and can be quite durable. Plus, they're doing loads more damage than even the most min-maxed Marauder can fantasize about. What about the Bounty Hunter? Surely they're not kitted out just with a high Streetwise and Knowledge: Underworld?

Finally, I've yet to see or hear about a total-party-kill in EotE. Heck, I've yet to hear about an actual player character death at all. If someone takes enough Wounds to exceed their Threshold, they don't just die. This is not D&D. They only die if they get one of the Critical Injuries that, literally, says that they die. It's rare, and it's supposed to be.

If the entire group takes enough Wounds to exceed each PC's Threshold, the campaign isn't suddenly over. The PCs are just unconscious and, since this is Star Wars, captured. The campaign is hardly over, so throwing something powerful enough to pound the Marauder into dust is not a big deal. Sure, it might knock out the rest of the party after the Marauder is down.

So freaking what?

You guys are stressing out about a problem that does not exist in this system.

Again, this is not D&D, Gurps, Hero Systems, or, and most pointedly, Hackmaster.

If people want viable solutions they've been given... for several pages now. Ignorance is no crime but when people come to a thread, ask for tools to solve a problem, and are provided with tools that have been there the entire time and then choose to ignore them... then they're a bad GM

Ignorance is no crime but when people come to a thread, ask for tools to solve a problem, and are provided with tools that have been there the entire time and then choose to ignore them... then they're a bad GM

Well... maybe just a poor reader.

Exactly, I think the most frustrating part even if the intent was how to simply not KO the rest of the party is that there have been numerous ways within the RAW pointed out by myself and others for how to deal with a high soak character in a way that won't equally KO the rest of the party and yet those like Evileeyore continue to completely disregard all of them and repeat the same mantra of "yeah but if you just throw bigger guns at them then the rest of the party is screwed"

If people want viable solutions they've been given... for several pages now. Ignorance is no crime but when people come to a thread, ask for tools to solve a problem, and are provided with tools that have been there the entire time and then choose to ignore them... then they're a bad GM

I think there have been two discussions in this thread. One is a lot of good suggestions for why to design an encounter for a high soak Marauder. The other is the frustration/perception that a GM has to design encounters specifically for the high soak Marauder with a sub-conversation about why/how high soak is an issue.

Exactly, I think the most frustrating part even if the intent was how to simply not KO the rest of the party is that there have been numerous ways within the RAW pointed out by myself and others for how to deal with a high soak character in a way that won't equally KO the rest of the party and yet those like Evileeyore continue to completely disregard all of them and repeat the same mantra of "yeah but if you just throw bigger guns at them then the rest of the party is screwed"

If people want viable solutions they've been given... for several pages now. Ignorance is no crime but when people come to a thread, ask for tools to solve a problem, and are provided with tools that have been there the entire time and then choose to ignore them... then they're a bad GM

I think there have been two discussions in this thread. One is a lot of good suggestions for why to design an encounter for a high soak Marauder. The other is the frustration/perception that a GM has to design encounters specifically for the high soak Marauder with a sub-conversation about why/how high soak is an issue.

This aside even if you did have to plan around them so what? If you're the gm isn't that your entire job? You have to plan to have appropriate threats no matter what your party composition is, you have to plan situations with each individual PC in mind so they have something to shine in, etc. This is no different for any character that's good at anything and is an integral part (at least for me) of every rpg.

I guess what I'm saying is that one of the "fixes" for Marauder encounter design is to present encounters that encourage the Marauder to design a more balanced character instead of one that is only good at fighting.

If being a Marauder and having high Brawn automatically makes you dangerous and scary, then there’s no way that the Marauder can fix that problem. You’ve just doomed that character and that player.

It's that with a Soak Machine, you have to pour more damage on the party and either contrive some way in which the extra damage is only pouring on the Soak Machine (which gets boring fast) or split him from the herd (which also gets boring fast), or you risk dropping the whole party.

It’s not contrived for the high DPS enemies to go after Soaky the Wookiee. Indeed, Soaky the Wookiee is likely to seek out those high DPS enemies, just so that he can keep them off his buddies.

Been there, done that. Got the battle scars.

With a high soak, the easy answer is bigger firepower to threaten and challenge that PC. The problem is that if the soak guy goes down, the rest of the party could easily get a TPK. They aren't equiped to take on the heavy firepower that someone with twice the soak and wounds could take on. It feels more contrived for the guy with the big gun to go, "well, I took down the Marauder, might as will wander away from this fight and not shoot my gun anymore at those other PCs."

My Wookiee makes a point of letting the others in the party get their shots in, so that I’m not the only one participating in the combat. I do my best to soak enough of the incoming damage that they’re unlikely to get killed, and then it’s up to them to choose how they want to participate in return.

I don’t see why the other side wouldn’t fight the same way. Maybe they wouldn’t always fight the same way, but they might do it some of the time.

Moreover, it’s really hard to fully and completely kill the party in this game. You can take them out of the combat relatively easily, but that just means they’re down and not dead. Give 'em a stimpack or three, and maybe a bit of medical attention, and you’ve got some nice prisoners that you can interrogate — or ransom, if anyone will actually pay anything for them.

I bet the game design was thinking exactly this. Start more encounters at long or medium ranges. Make the Marauder waste a turn getter to the bad guys so that his soak is helpful and he can get dingged up before killing all the baddies. One of the many tools in the GMs toolbelt.

Yup. I’m pretty sure that I first read about this technique in one of the books, regarding how to run an interesting combat and to give Soaky the Wookiee more of a challenge.

Evileeyore continue to completely disregard all of them and repeat the same mantra of "yeah but if you just throw bigger guns at them then the rest of the party is screwed"

I don't want to build encounters around 1 character. I want to build them around the whole party. This becomes harder (and more boring for me) when a character's entire job is "stand there and be a damage sponge".

I (as a GM) now must either contrive to only pour damage on him (to somehow "challenge" his ability to stand around and imitate a a granite statuary*) or worry a bit that every "challenging" encounter will end in "TPN and Capture". Which... will get old after the third time this happens.

Now, I've also said this a few times: I won't have this problem. There will be no Soaky the Bear in my game. I'm just debating the merits to see if there are ways either fix the Spec, or should I just ignore it. I would like to see the game improved, not see it continue forward with things that will turn players and GMs away.

* Not to denigrate either granite statuary or Soak Beasts who are active participants beyond being a great pile of Wounds waiting to be shot at. I'm more poking fun at the nonsensical idea that "being a Soak Beast" is somehow an integral cog in the combat machine and kinda wishing this crap had moved to MMO land and never returned.

The other is the frustration/perception that a GM hasto design encounters specifically for the high soak Marauder with a sub-conversation about why/how high soak is an issue.

Ignorance is no crime but when people come to a thread, ask for tools to solve a problem, and are provided with tools that have been there the entire time and then choose to ignore them... then they're a bad GM

That was Daeglan and he seems generally happy (correct me if I'm wrong) with the "Be a Better GM" level of advice offered.

I strolled into Daeg's thread and begun a separate debate with people who started on "There is no problem here, Soak isn't broken at all, move along sir".

I've just refused to shut up or go away since... You can't stop the signal!

There is not a problem, you simply didn't understand how the game rules are supposed to work. Either that or you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong. Since you never actually engage with anyone's points, I'm going to assume the latter.

Evileeyore continue to completely disregard all of them and repeat the same mantra of "yeah but if you just throw bigger guns at them then the rest of the party is screwed"

I'm not disregarding it. As I've mentioned, a number of those ideas are good, but (as always) it will get old fast.

I don't want to build encounters around 1 character. I want to build them around the whole party. This becomes harder (and more boring for me) when a character's entire job is "stand there and be a damage sponge".

You say you aren't disregarding it and then you continued on to show you did exactly what when you mention not wanting to have to design encounters around one player or pour all damage on them... even though over half the suggestions where methods where you not only didn't have to design ANY encounter specifically around them but weren't even about bringing bigger guns or focus fire upon the soak player but merely on how to spend your advantages, triumphs, and destiny pionts in ways that could deal with a high soak character while not insta gibbing low soak characters.

All this aside (ie the fact that you've been given several suggestions that don't require you to balance around a single player) If you don't like balancing encounters around players then why are you a GM to begin with? That's one of the main jobs of the GM.

Now, I've also said this a few times: I won't have this problem. There will be no Soaky the Bear in my game. I'm just debating the merits to see if there are ways either fix the Spec, or should I just ignore it. I would like to see the game improved, not see it continue forward with things that will turn players and GMs away.

There's nothing to fix with the spec though, it has it's inherent weakenesses like every other class and can be easily dealt with if you know what you're doing as has been demonstrated repeatedly. When you choose to ignore the options that don't require planning and choose not to incorperate the ones that do that's a problem with you as a GM not a class spec.

Ignorance is no crime but when people come to a thread, ask for tools to solve a problem, and are provided with tools that have been there the entire time and then choose to ignore them... then they're a bad GM

You clearly fail to understand something very simple: I never once asked for advice on how to deal with Soaky the Bear.

That was Daeglan and he seems generally happy (correct me if I'm wrong) with the "Be a Better GM" level of advice offered.

I strolled into Daeg's thread and begun a separate debate with people who started on "There is no problem here, Soak isn't broken at all, move along sir".

I've just refused to shut up or go away since... You can't stop the signal!

All you've been doing this entire time is complaining about high soak characters and have repeatedly said the spec needs to be fixed. Also how is stating that there's something wrong with soak then have no relevance to the topic of how to deal with soak?

If there's easy ways to deal with it then, shocker, there's nothing wrong with it. The only reason anyone was suggesting there might be something wrong with it is that they didn't know how to deal with it... I mean that's litterally explained in the very first post of the entire thread.

It seems to me you just want to complain to complain, you don't actually want a solution of any sort you just found a mechanic you don't like and even though it's been proven it's not something that difficult to deal with if you're willing to either do planning or strategize your expendature of advantages/triumph/destiny and so instead of spending time doing so you just come here and insist it must be nerfed despite it being demonstrated there being no need. In the end it's your game you're going to be playing though, so if you want to go through and nerf a spec instead of taking a small moment of your time when prepping for sessions to use the given suggestions then that's on you but I certainly wouldn't want to be a player in a group with a GM like that who has the ability to deal with something very easily and yet instead chooses to just weaken it.

It seems to me you just want to complain to complain, you don't actually want a solution of any sort you just found a mechanic you don't like and even though it's been proven it's not something that difficult to deal with if you're willing to either do planning or strategize your expendature of advantages/triumph/destiny and so instead of spending time doing so you just come here and insist it must be nerfed despite it being demonstrated there being no need.

Your post has prompted me to remember that there are some people who just like to debate — endlessly. They don’t care what the argument is, or which side they’re on, they just want to argue — endlessly.

I think I’m done here.

You say you aren't disregarding it and then you continued on to show you did exactly what when you mention not wanting to have to design encounters around one player or pour all damage on them...

And it is all advice on how to deal specifically with the one character. Spend Triumph and Advantages to specifically deal with him. Put in weapons to specifically strip him of his biggest advantage (Breach) without seriously affecting the others. Build Adversaries to specifically deal with him (Knockdown, Doctor McStunpoke, etc). Etc.

Sure, all those things work just as great (better in many cases) on everyone else, but your tailoring them for Soaky Bear. You are focus firing on the one guy, and if that works for you and yours, good. It didn't work for my group. We didn't like the MMOey feel of the Soak Beast being the party "tank". If you like that, have fun (though to be honest 4e D&D does it better).

...even though over half the suggestions where methods where you not only didn't have to design ANY encounter specifically around them but weren't even about bringing bigger guns or focus fire upon the soak player but merely on how to spend your advantages, triumphs, and destiny pionts in ways that could deal with a high soak character while not insta gibbing low soak characters.

Oh, and Doctor Magic Fingers. Though if he can stand toe to toe with a Soak Beast he can do so with everyone (just they'll have 3-4 more Strain so he has to poke them twice).

There's nothing to fix with the spec though, it has it's inherent weakenesses like every other class and can be easily dealt with if you know what you're doing as has been demonstrated repeatedly. When you choose to ignore the options that don't require planning and choose not to incorperate the ones that do that's a problem with you as a GM not a class spec.

If Soak were fixed, I'd have little to no problem with the Spec. As such I have argued for Fixing Soak (and maybe Wound Threshold, maybe).

All you've been doing this entire time is complaining about high soak characters and have repeatedly said the spec needs to be fixed. Also how is stating that there's something wrong with soak then have no relevance to the topic of how to deal with soak?

I desire a means to see the underlying inherent problem solved, you want to slap "GM fixes" on it and call it done.

Both are solutions. My way* fixes it long term, your way means every 4-6 months a new GM comes in here asking "How do I deal with my Soaky Bear?". And for each GM asking this there is probably one not bothering to ask, just setting this game aside and moving back to Saga Edition, or something else (and thus losing that entire group as fans).

* yes, I know, FFG won't impliment any such long term fixes. Man can dream though.

If there's easy ways to deal with it then, shocker, there's nothing wrong with it.

To bad we couldn't both treat each other with respect.

You say you aren't disregarding it and then you continued on to show you did exactly what when you mention not wanting to have to design encounters around one player or pour all damage on them...

I'm not disregarding them. I simply see them as "bandaids" for the "gaping wound that is Soak, Brawn, and high Wound Thresholds".

And it is all advice on how to deal specifically with the one character. Spend Triumph and Advantages to specifically deal with him. Put in weapons to specifically strip him of his biggest advantage (Breach) without seriously affecting the others. Build Adversaries to specifically deal with him (Knockdown, Doctor McStunpoke, etc). Etc.

Sure, all those things work just as great (better in many cases) on everyone else, but your tailoring them for Soaky Bear. You are focus firing on the one guy, and if that works for you and yours, good. It didn't work for my group. We didn't like the MMOey feel of the Soak Beast being the party "tank". If you like that, have fun (though to be honest 4e D&D does it better).

So if a character can take more damage becasue he specifically deisgned himself to take more damage... there's something wrong?

I'm sorry so when the mechanic can unlock doors better than anyone else that's wrong? When the doctor can heal better than anyone else, that's wrong? When the social character can talk out of social situations better than anyone else, that's wrong?

The matter of the fact is there are specs for a reason, that's not a problem it's just adding variation to players, some are going to be good at certain things that others aren't.

Yes you're going to have to treat the combat tank different in combat than someone who'se not a combat tank, just like you'll have to treat the sniper different than someone who's not, just like you'll have to treat the doctor who can heal players in combat better than others different than someone who's not, etc, etc, etc. These aren't bandaids because there's no problem to be fixed unless you consider variation a problem at which point you're basically saying players should be forced to all play exactly the same thing so there doesn't need to be any thinking done on the GM's part.

As for 4e D&D no that seems to fit YOUR view of how the game should be. I have absolutely no issue with non combat specced characters in combat because I realize that not only do the rules allow me to balance challenges with them and a combat centric character very easily but they also follow logically that the enemy is not going to ever focus on the nerdy scholor ducking for cover but instead the characters able to actually kill effectively. No tailoring neccessary just common sense from a story telling perspective and rules that aid that.

...even though over half the suggestions where methods where you not only didn't have to design ANY encounter specifically around them but weren't even about bringing bigger guns or focus fire upon the soak player but merely on how to spend your advantages, triumphs, and destiny pionts in ways that could deal with a high soak character while not insta gibbing low soak characters.

Spending T & A and using Breach were the only suggestions that weren't either "focus fire" or "insta-gib" everyone else.

Oh, and Doctor Magic Fingers. Though if he can stand toe to toe with a Soak Beast he can do so with everyone (just they'll have 3-4 more Strain so he has to poke them twice).

You're so incredibly wrong it hurts. Minion groupings where the thing I pressed the most and they work absolutely fine without requiring every enemy in the fight to focus fire and they certainly don't insta gib the rest of the party.

Similarly weapon abilities like entangle where suggested.

As for the doctor suggestion I never suggested that, though your complaint with the doctor still adresses the exact problem your having in that it deals with soak character without instagibbing the rest of the party. If your players create characters that get insta-gibbed the moment any opponent looks at them then that's a problem with your players building their characters that way becasue you're taking an incredible extreme here of a party composed of one character whose done nothing but focus on combat and other players who've done everything to avoid any sort of combat specs or stats.

There's nothing to fix with the spec though, it has it's inherent weakenesses like every other class and can be easily dealt with if you know what you're doing as has been demonstrated repeatedly. When you choose to ignore the options that don't require planning and choose not to incorperate the ones that do that's a problem with you as a GM not a class spec.

The Spec has problems because it is laser focused on one thing, this one thing allows the Marauder to become a Soaky Bear.

If Soak were fixed, I'd have little to no problem with the Spec. As such I have argued for Fixing Soak (and maybe Wound Threshold, maybe).

As opposed to a politicio / trader / entrepenuer who's "laser focused" on socializing or a driver / pilot who's "laser focused" on piloting, etc.

Again I fail to see the problem there is no need to fix soak you can easily challenge a soak character with minimal effort and planning without horribly mauling the rest of the party. Does it take some effort on the GM's part? Sure... but so does planning out ANY adventure and balacning combat encounters even without that soak character.

If you don't want a combat heavy campaign then by all means don't design one, your'e the GM and you have the ultimate control and if a player is acting up and you really don't want them to do what they're doing then you can always talk to them or decline to gm for them. This is the situation with pretty much EVERY rpg.

All you've been doing this entire time is complaining about high soak characters and have repeatedly said the spec needs to be fixed. Also how is stating that there's something wrong with soak then have no relevance to the topic of how to deal with soak?

We have a fundimental difference of opinion on "how to deal with it".

I desire a means to see the underlying inherent problem solved, you want to slap "GM fixes" on it and call it done.

Both are solutions. My way* fixes it long term, your way means every 4-6 months a new GM comes in here asking "How do I deal with my Soaky Bear?". And for each GM asking this there is probably one not bothering to ask, just setting this game aside and moving back to Saga Edition, or something else (and thus losing that entire group as fans).

* yes, I know, FFG won't impliment any such long term fixes. Man can dream though.

Yes we certainly do, I think a GM is going to have to deal with balancing any encounter and reacting to each players build with or without that soak character. Your complaint basically has boiled down to "one player has built their character better at combat than the others"... exactly what rpg does this not happen in? There's always going to be someone who's "the best" out of the group at something and who cares? If the combat focused character has invested all of his time, money, and exp making himself better at combat than the rest of the party then he should understandably be better at combat because he's trading off not being as good at everything else.

No you don't deal with any underlying problem at all, nerfing them doesn't solve anything it just delays the inevetable where they get more WT or Soak from talents or better gear. My way gives you easily scalable solutions (disarming always costs the same, entangling alwasy costs the same, enemies stats are always going to have to go up as you play and the same strategy still works months down the line just with stronger enemies just like in D&D you need to through higher CR mobs at players as they level up, this is nothing new to gaming.)