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.

Quoted for emphasis.

If someone isn't engaging in good-faith discussion, there's a point at which it's okay to just walk away from the discussion.

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.

Quoted for emphasis.

If someone isn't engaging in good-faith discussion, there's a point at which it's okay to just walk away from the discussion.

Yeah I think I'm out, can't make much more of a point than I already have I don't think.

It is only a problem if it is a problem. Many people don't have an issue, some people do. With creative thinking or imagination you can deal with it in the game by allowing the soak monster to revel in his focus or by challenging him in different ways. As GMs we contrive things all the time with the player group in mind. Or if you can't adjust for it, you can drop the spec and try to houserule for something that is an issue for you. At the end of the day you do whatever works best for you.

Ummm... I've skimmed through this thread and read the last few pages but there is a lot here so has anybody else tried this?

We brought in a WHFRP3 rule that every hit does a minimum of 1 wound regardless of soak and allows for potential Critical Injuries (though at a -10%). It's not an add just a minimum. It's one of the only House Rules we use (the other is related to Auto-Fire). For lower Soak PCs it generally doesn't make a difference at all as most hits do damage over their Soak anyway and for high Soak PCs it keeps them from dominating combat quite as much because they know they're always going to get at least a little hurt too. HS PCs are still major bada$$es, they just aren't as nearly invincible.

It's worked really well for us.

I said this back on page 2 or 3 but I'm just going to say it again. Inequality of combat potential is only a problem if the intent of combat is to fight.

The intent of combat is NEVER to fight (outside of some very rare scenarios such as a gladatorial combat). It is always a means to an end. I think this entire problem comes from a D&D / MMO mindset where two groups meet for the purpose of murdering each other. Really, how realistic is that?

You're trying to rescue a captured prisoner? Everyone has something to do - Marauder can battle stormtroopers, the Tech can try to release the restraints, thief trying to get the escape pod working...

You're trying to protect the assassination target from Bounty Hunters? Marauder is shielding him, Merc and the BH are providing covering fire as they fall back...

You've just stolen the Jewel of Yavin and guards are pouring in? Marauder is trying to make a Brawn roll to pull the steel shutters off the window and the Pilot is trying to position the cloud car beneath the window and people are trying to make the Athletics rolls to jump into the speeder...

Storm troopers are guarding the shield generator? One of them is trying to get to the speeder bike so that she can warn the battalion, two others are trying to lower the blast doors, one is heading for the gantry overhead so he can take sniper shots at the Astromech droid the party will use to shut down the shields...

As long as you're not running combats as two groups artificially trying to murder each other, but rather actually achieve something, then a high soak marauder is seldom a problem. Instead they are an asset to the team, not something that dominates and takes away all fun from the other players. A marauder can kill three times as many enemies as the rest of the PCs put together and the PC who wired the enemy's hyperdrive to blow and thus end the pursuit will still be / feel like the one who saved the day.

This is not an MMO. This is not D&D. Being the best at taking blows does not mean you are the hero of every encounter. Make encounters environmentally rich, make objectives complex and the problem is massively diminished. In D&D you tend to think of "here is a room, the PCs will fight these creatures here, I have added a lava pit that people cannot cross". I once ran a battle in and out of a tenement block where the creature (a materializing and de-materializing spirit) kept running between floors and would climb up the outside of the building. You had PCs leaning out of windows shfiring up and down, another in the alley below providing covering fire upwards... If there's a lava pit in an EotE game it's not going to be "something PCs cannot cross", it's going to be something someone fires their grappling hook at the gundark and pulls it into it.

Imagination and realism make this problem go away. And if that advice falls under the "be a better GM" category then I'm 100% fine with that because saying so doesn't dismiss this as a solution. Be a better GM - think through what people are actually trying to achieve in an encounter and where it's actually taking place, and you'll have fewer problems.

Someone earlier said that if the Marauder goes down then you're looking at TPN. Well, no. If it looks like you're beaten then the PCs should run away.

knasserII, that post should be stickied at the top of the forum. They should print it up and include it in the books.

I knew those things subconsciously but you laid it out in a great way that reminded me of them. Thanks!

I completely agree Progressions. It is also the why behind the Order 66 podcasts "The List".

Agreed. It's superb advice for GM'ing in general. Also, I think it's important to be open to player input. I've found that players with less combat-oriented characters generally find their own ways to make a difference. For instance, in one adventure I ran, the PCs came across a guard station that I originally envisioned as a straight up fight/race to shutdown surveillance. Instead, one of the party members was able to bluff his way into convincing the guards that they were their new shift replacements. The player did a great job of improvising an explanation on the spot that totally went with his amazing roll. He won the encounter without a shot fired.

Another time, the party was in a tough combat with a gang of pirates. While the party's combat crew gave as good as they got, the PC from the last example once again turned the tide. In an earlier interaction with the pirates, he sensed a Megatron/Starscream vibe between the gang leader and his second-in-command. With some quick wheeling and dealing in the middle of combat, the PC convinced the 2nd-in-command to betray the gang leader. She shot her superior in the back and assumed leadership of the gang, ending the combat. Definitely not something I had planned when preparing the session, but as knasserII said, combat isn't just for the sake of combat. Just as the PCs have their goals and motivations, so do the NPCs. Players will come up with creative ways to engage their foes so it's not all pewpew vs. Soaky the Bear.

Wow. Thanks people - so many kind words.

Though I confess, whenever I get a post with so many Likes (which so far as I know can't be removed), I always get this terrible urge to edit the post to something naughty like "Vote for Putin" or just a picture of a puppy.

(picture of puppy)

Agreed. It's superb advice for GM'ing in general. Also, I think it's important to be open to player input. I've found that players with less combat-oriented characters generally find their own ways to make a difference. For instance, in one adventure I ran, the PCs came across a guard station that I originally envisioned as a straight up fight/race to shutdown surveillance. Instead, one of the party members was able to bluff his way into convincing the guards that they were their new shift replacements. The player did a great job of improvising an explanation on the spot that totally went with his amazing roll. He won the encounter without a shot fired.

Another time, the party was in a tough combat with a gang of pirates. While the party's combat crew gave as good as they got, the PC from the last example once again turned the tide. In an earlier interaction with the pirates, he sensed a Megatron/Starscream vibe between the gang leader and his second-in-command. With some quick wheeling and dealing in the middle of combat, the PC convinced the 2nd-in-command to betray the gang leader. She shot her superior in the back and assumed leadership of the gang, ending the combat. Definitely not something I had planned when preparing the session, but as knasserII said, combat isn't just for the sake of combat. Just as the PCs have their goals and motivations, so do the NPCs. Players will come up with creative ways to engage their foes so it's not all pewpew vs. Soaky the Bear.

All REALLY good advice. GM's often think of themselves as master of the Universe. But if you give players power to do so, they will often solve problems in the group themselves.

Though I confess, whenever I get a post with so many Likes (which so far as I know can't be removed), I always get this terrible urge to edit the post to something naughty like "Vote for Putin" or just a picture of a puppy.

There is an unlike-button and I'm not afraid to use it

There is an unlike-button and I'm not afraid to use it

They must have disabled it on me rightly fearing I'd break it pushing it too often...

You can just un-do your likes, not add a dislike

You can just un-do your likes, not add a dislike

Um, I just Liked a post by Evileeyore as an experiment and I can't see any "Unlike" button. It just says "You like this" and it's not clickable.

Ah, not that I didn't like the post, EE.

Um, I just Liked a post by Evileeyore as an experiment and I can't see any "Unlike" button. It just says "You like this" and it's not clickable.

Now I know they can't even undo it and it makes me even happier.

Ah, not that I didn't like the post, EE.

ARGGHHH!! DID IT AGAIN!

(Darth Vader Noooo)

Just learn the art of ignore so sayeth Master HappyDaze. Although no one has annoyed him enough to make his ignore list of late. Ah well those were the daze.

You can just un-do your likes, not add a dislike

Um, I just Liked a post by Evileeyore as an experiment and I can't see any "Unlike" button. It just says "You like this" and it's not clickable.

Ah, not that I didn't like the post, EE.

There should be an "unlike" button next to the "You like this" text. At least there is in IE. I know I'm able to unlike things.

The intent of combat is NEVER to fight (outside of some very rare scenarios such as a gladatorial combat). It is always a means to an end. I think this entire problem comes from a D&D / MMO mindset where two groups meet for the purpose of murdering each other. Really, how realistic is that?

This. I've never understood the lure of D&D where 5 friends from a small village get together, buy 50' of rope, a tinderbox and then proceed to murder every living thing in some near dungeon...Lawful Good says the paladin.

I guess the new hutt PC will have high soak, especially if they get a huge helmet.

You can just un-do your likes, not add a dislike

Um, I just Liked a post by Evileeyore as an experiment and I can't see any "Unlike" button. It just says "You like this" and it's not clickable.

Ah, not that I didn't like the post, EE.

There should be an "unlike" button next to the "You like this" text. At least there is in IE. I know I'm able to unlike things.

Not for me. Just has "You like this" and then underneath that Report, MultiQuote and Quote. Browser says I'm using IE11.

But let's not derail the thread. I like what I like and that's enough for me.