I love Doctor-Whoish accent XD

Sorry people from London, every time I listen to you talking I can only think about the Doctor XDD I have a neighbour from England and maybe one of my 20 first was "Do you watch Doctor Who?", "Off course!" was her answer XD

Knasserll (OMG how many ss and ll XD) I agree with almost everything you just said in the last posts, but try to not bring this to a personal field (my English probably is awful I know XD)

Backing to post sorry, I use to say one thing to my players: "Hero isn't someone with 15 at Brawn and 11 Ranks to Killing Weapons and 12 Ranks on Talent Kill Everything, are people who just make the difference. They are heroes because they, probably knowing that they will die, confront that Imperial officer that harrases and innocent just because "has a bad day".

Maybe its because there is a lot of humor sense (and the movies are OLD too and the battle coreographies are awful), but the characters in the movies doesn't give me the sensation, in general therms, theat they are super-uber-strong.

They are probably PRETTY GOOD in some of their fields, but even with that: Luke gets hit with the starfighter and in Jabba's sail barge, Leia fails some diplomatic checks (she seems better combatant than diplomatic), Han gets hit sometimes in the Falcon and Chewie, well, he use to repair a bit late but use to repair things. C3PO, well, he translates XD.

The only trully skilled one seems R2D2 and even sometimes fails like in Bespin XD

Heroes are strong, yes, the best among the galaxy? I don't know, they should be not stated or protected with 3, 4 or 5 Adversary? Probably, again, I don't know. I would like it.

About the other "big ones" like Obi, Vader and Palpi, well... Obi too old (and bad coreography again too), Vader, well, he can grip XD, seems really strong, but his true power isn't showed on movies, Anakin seems more powerful and skilled than Vader. Above the same with Palpatine. Luke wasn't a true match to mesure his potential.

(What I was talking about... I have to focus my mind XD) I will continue better in another post XD

Knasserll (OMG how many ss and ll XD) I agree with almost everything you just said in the last posts, but try to not bring this to a personal field (my English probably is awful I know XD)

No offence intended. I don't and wont assess someone's argument based on their English (and I understand you just fine. ). I just posted that because someone else was poking at someone's English skills and I thought that was a bit unnecessary so I posted that video as a funny way of pointing out something in their own post. We shouldn't be nit-picking people's grammar or style here.

Hopefully that's an end to it.

Like to hear that But remember that one of the main rules to stop or prevent a conflict is don't start or continue it.

Remember that in forums/internet you cannot see the one one face and the plain text sometimes seems too cold. Probably if you meet a person that you discussed a lot on the net in person, the sensation will be more "pleasant".

Averyone here have the same passion (or similar), we discuss a lot, but probably If we will meet at any "Con" we will have tons of laughs and will enjoy and have a great time

(Talking to everyone) Before push POST button, remember that you can hurt someone and enter on a "Raging Wheel" XD

NOTE: Also exists the EDIT button

That video is just full of 'lol'. Got to love David Mitchell.

I haven't read through the whole tread but I'm on the side that don't want write ups.

I see it this way, if i want Darth Vader to be a villain or nemesis to the party i could use for example the Fallen Jedi when they are starters, and after they have got a few hundred exp i need to boost Darth up quite a bit.

Even if he's stated by RAW I would need to do the same if i wanted him to be the major plot nemesis in my campaign.

It doesn't matter if he has 20000 exp or 200 exp worth of stuff, if I want to use Darth, I need to fix the statblock so that my players characters would have a fair chance in the end of the campaign ( if that's intended).

For example, last session my PCs meet with a "special agent" of the Empire, who happened to be Mara Jade. I used the stats for the Emperors hand, gave her a few points more of Wound threshold and a few upgrades on Move power. My PCs got totally buttraped by her in two turns, ( which was intended) but they managed to give her two crits on the way. One PC improvised an explosive charge as a weapon with a DP flip and hurt her badly. However, this wasn't a TPK, but she incapacitated all the PCs and left them to die. The PCs then managed to regain conciseness and had to flee the imperial facility, now they want revenge.

If we're going to start assessing people's posts based on their grammar or semantics, I'll just leave this here.

I'm just trying to understand if his errors are due to English being a second or third language or the laziness of text-speak or just a lack of caring. The first one I can understand and can adjust for, as I have done so for others on this board that English is a second language for. The other two I can adjust for too.

Oh I meant "could care less" in this case because obviously some people do care. Others could care less than those people since you can not care less than someone that doesn't care in the the first place.

In one of the last game sessions I created a few of the Vader stats, just the combat ones. This was before F&D and the Parry mechanics.

Maybe actually I would use (or could be great) and upgraded/empowered version of a generic Insquitor.

Do you people suggest to add more than 3 Adversary in cases like this?

I haven't read through the whole tread but I'm on the side that don't want write ups.

I see it this way, if i want Darth Vader to be a villain or nemesis to the party i could use for example the Fallen Jedi when they are starters, and after they have got a few hundred exp i need to boost Darth up quite a bit.

Even if he's stated by RAW I would need to do the same if i wanted him to be the major plot nemesis in my campaign.

It doesn't matter if he has 20000 exp or 200 exp worth of stuff, if I want to use Darth, I need to fix the statblock so that my players characters would have a fair chance in the end of the campaign ( if that's intended).

See to me, that would be unfair. I would expect my players to be angry (and I would agree with them) if no matter what they had achieved I arbitrarily changed the stats of a "pet" NPC so that he was better than them. If the party is weak, then they'll probably go an adventure where they encounter the Forsaken Jedi (or whatever). If the party is powerful, they may run up against Vader. But in either case, I need Vader to be a real person in line with the setting, otherwise I feel I would be breaking the trust my players have placed in me to be a neutral arbitrator between them and the universe. I can't take sides. I know that's not how everyone plays, but it's how a lot of us play - we want the setting to be real and independent of the PCs.

I personally am less interested in actual numbers and complete stats as I am in more general things like, what career and specs might one of the Jedi have. For instance, what career did Yoda have? Was he a Consular, or a Mystic? I think Mystic, although he most likely had Sage as one of his specs.

Anikin is an interesting one. He didn't get the "normal" start as a Jedi. Younglings are trained to be Jedi from a very early age, so they end up with one of the Force careers at the outset. Ani, on the other hand, did not get that benefit. He's got the Ace career with Pilot as his first spec. (And Obligation as Watto's slave.) Then along comes Qui Gon who says, "hey kid, you mitochondriads are HUGE, I'ma train you." At which point, Ani picks up FS Emergent. From there, he picks up whatever Force specs he likes. Starfighter Ace, Shien Expert, whatever.

Obi Wan? I'm thinking Guardian career. Ahsoka... Warrior.

Remember, as long as FFG continues with the way they've been doing things, we still have 18 more FnD specs to come our way.

Do you people suggest to add more than 3 Adversary in cases like this?

And that's why the stats are useful! They help people establish a baseline to work from. Even if you only want a Vader equivalent, it gives you something to compare against.

Anyway, yes. Vader should absolutely be more than Adversary 3. If an Emperor's Hand or Black Sun Vigo is Adversary 3 (and they are), then Vader should certainly rate a 4 or more. He has twice the experience of any Emperor's Hand and more natural ability to boot. I would be seriously tempted to put him at Adversary 5.

Obi Wan? I'm thinking Guardian career. Ahsoka... Warrior.

Oddly enough I used Peace Keeper to begin with given how often I saw her commanding troops, and then went Soresu Defender. I can see that this may be an odd approach, though. From recollection it took me about 150 bonus XP to get her up to what we see on screen. And then the projected adult version I plan to use in the game took her to about 200XP more on top of that. I found I had everything I thought she'd realistically have by that point.

Remember, as long as FFG continues with the way they've been doing things, we still have 18 more FnD specs to come our way.

Dathomir Witch will be an interesting one. I wonder if they'll actually call it that and how they'll handle such things.

I haven't read through the whole tread but I'm on the side that don't want write ups.

I see it this way, if i want Darth Vader to be a villain or nemesis to the party i could use for example the Fallen Jedi when they are starters, and after they have got a few hundred exp i need to boost Darth up quite a bit.

Even if he's stated by RAW I would need to do the same if i wanted him to be the major plot nemesis in my campaign.

It doesn't matter if he has 20000 exp or 200 exp worth of stuff, if I want to use Darth, I need to fix the statblock so that my players characters would have a fair chance in the end of the campaign ( if that's intended).

See to me, that would be unfair. I would expect my players to be angry (and I would agree with them) if no matter what they had achieved I arbitrarily changed the stats of a "pet" NPC so that he was better than them. If the party is weak, then they'll probably go an adventure where they encounter the Forsaken Jedi (or whatever). If the party is powerful, they may run up against Vader. But in either case, I need Vader to be a real person in line with the setting, otherwise I feel I would be breaking the trust my players have placed in me to be a neutral arbitrator between them and the universe. I can't take sides. I know that's not how everyone plays, but it's how a lot of us play - we want the setting to be real and independent of the PCs.

Well just say we have different players and styles then. It wouldn't be unfair against the players per se, i don't mean that Vader should kick the players butt no matter what. What i mean is that in an early campaign the Nemesis don't need to be up to date with all the stats needed, just enough to be a big problem for the players. And by the end of the campaign the NPC needs stats so that it is still a climactic fight between NPC and PCs. But a fair fight then.

Let's say to the movies. The GM didn't need anything but a decent coercion stat for Vader when he was interrogating Leia, but when he fought Luke some combat stats where needed.

I haven't read through the whole tread but I'm on the side that don't want write ups.

I see it this way, if i want Darth Vader to be a villain or nemesis to the party i could use for example the Fallen Jedi when they are starters, and after they have got a few hundred exp i need to boost Darth up quite a bit.

Even if he's stated by RAW I would need to do the same if i wanted him to be the major plot nemesis in my campaign.

It doesn't matter if he has 20000 exp or 200 exp worth of stuff, if I want to use Darth, I need to fix the statblock so that my players characters would have a fair chance in the end of the campaign ( if that's intended).

See to me, that would be unfair. I would expect my players to be angry (and I would agree with them) if no matter what they had achieved I arbitrarily changed the stats of a "pet" NPC so that he was better than them. If the party is weak, then they'll probably go an adventure where they encounter the Forsaken Jedi (or whatever). If the party is powerful, they may run up against Vader. But in either case, I need Vader to be a real person in line with the setting, otherwise I feel I would be breaking the trust my players have placed in me to be a neutral arbitrator between them and the universe. I can't take sides. I know that's not how everyone plays, but it's how a lot of us play - we want the setting to be real and independent of the PCs.

Well just say we have different players and styles then. It wouldn't be unfair against the players per se, i don't mean that Vader should kick the players butt no matter what. What i mean is that in an early campaign the Nemesis don't need to be up to date with all the stats needed, just enough to be a big problem for the players. And by the end of the campaign the NPC needs stats so that it is still a climactic fight between NPC and PCs. But a fair fight then.

Let's say to the movies. The GM didn't need anything but a decent coercion stat for Vader when he was interrogating Leia, but when he fought Luke some combat stats where needed.

Sure, we have different play styles. I recognize that and don't say mine is better. It's one of those funny and most fundamental divisions between GMs that is often unnoticed by players themselves. One faction of GMs wants the setting to be independent of the PCs because they feel that's necessary to the setting's integrity in some way. There's a dragon on that mountain whether the PCs go there or not, and if they go there when they're first level despite all the frantic waving the GM is doing at them, they're going to get barbecued because that's what a dragon is. The other faction of GMs starts with the players rather than the world and says "you're X powerful, you're going to come across goblins. When you're 10th level, you'll encounter a dragon on a mountain".

The two styles are, so far as I can see, almost entirely antithetical to each other and both sets of GMs find it downright hard to accept the other approach. I know I struggle to see how it's not "cheating" to change things around the player. Whilst others meet me with blank incomprehension as to why I have a problem with altering a villain according to what the PCs do. I'm not sure this division between the two types of GM will ever be fully healed, nor should be - they're both valid and incompatible approaches.

Anyway, for the former set, having formal stats for Vader and the gang is very useful. We don't want to say "The PCs are at 500XP, therefore we'll make Vader 800XP". We want the character to have a grounding in what they "ought" to be.

Sure, we have different play styles. I recognize that and don't say mine is better. It's one of those funny and most fundamental divisions between GMs that is often unnoticed by players themselves. One faction of GMs wants the setting to be independent of the PCs because they feel that's necessary to the setting's integrity in some way. There's a dragon on that mountain whether the PCs go there or not, and if they go there when they're first level despite all the frantic waving the GM is doing at them, they're going to get barbecued because that's what a dragon is. The other faction of GMs starts with the players rather than the world and says "you're X powerful, you're going to come across goblins. When you're 10th level, you'll encounter a dragon on a mountain".

The two styles are, so far as I can see, almost entirely antithetical to each other and both sets of GMs find it downright hard to accept the other approach. I know I struggle to see how it's not "cheating" to change things around the player. Whilst others meet me with blank incomprehension as to why I have a problem with altering a villain according to what the PCs do. I'm not sure this division between the two types of GM will ever be fully healed, nor should be - they're both valid and incompatible approaches.

Anyway, for the former set, having formal stats for Vader and the gang is very useful. We don't want to say "The PCs are at 500XP, therefore we'll make Vader 800XP". We want the character to have a grounding in what they "ought" to be.

Really good post. I agree on that part, most of it, that GMs have a hard time seeing the other side as you describe it. And I know that I've that problem at least from time to time. However for me, the way i tackle it is usually different for different games. In this game I go for the style i described earlier but in other games I go for the "Dragon, flame, dead" (oversimplification) method. But both styles are valid and fun.

And again, great post!

Sure, we have different play styles. I recognize that and don't say mine is better. It's one of those funny and most fundamental divisions between GMs that is often unnoticed by players themselves. One faction of GMs wants the setting to be independent of the PCs because they feel that's necessary to the setting's integrity in some way. There's a dragon on that mountain whether the PCs go there or not, and if they go there when they're first level despite all the frantic waving the GM is doing at them, they're going to get barbecued because that's what a dragon is. The other faction of GMs starts with the players rather than the world and says "you're X powerful, you're going to come across goblins. When you're 10th level, you'll encounter a dragon on a mountain".

The two styles are, so far as I can see, almost entirely antithetical to each other and both sets of GMs find it downright hard to accept the other approach. I know I struggle to see how it's not "cheating" to change things around the player. Whilst others meet me with blank incomprehension as to why I have a problem with altering a villain according to what the PCs do. I'm not sure this division between the two types of GM will ever be fully healed, nor should be - they're both valid and incompatible approaches.

Anyway, for the former set, having formal stats for Vader and the gang is very useful. We don't want to say "The PCs are at 500XP, therefore we'll make Vader 800XP". We want the character to have a grounding in what they "ought" to be.

Really good post. I agree on that part, most of it, that GMs have a hard time seeing the other side as you describe it. And I know that I've that problem at least from time to time. However for me, the way i tackle it is usually different for different games. In this game I go for the style i described earlier but in other games I go for the "Dragon, flame, dead" (oversimplification) method. But both styles are valid and fun.

And again, great post!

I got a genuine laugh out of that - "Dragon, flame, dead". No, I think that description is fine as it is.

Anyway, all I'm really doing here is defending why many people do want the stats and saying that's okay. I hope I haven't overstepped into saying other people should use them. As I wrote, it's easier to ignore if you don't want them than to create if you do. And there are things that take up far more space that I don't think everyone uses and which attract a lot less opposition. So that's basically where I'm coming from and what I'm saying in a nutshell. I don't think there's anything in your post I disagree with either. It's a matter of choice.

I'm glad there can be an amicable disagreement and I know that will make Josep happy.

I'm just trying to understand if his errors are due to English being a second or third language or the laziness of text-speak or just a lack of caring.

All other languages use punctuation, and he doesn't use any. So it's lazy, and hard to respect.

I'm just trying to understand if his errors are due to English being a second or third language or the laziness of text-speak or just a lack of caring.

All other languages use punctuation, and he doesn't use any. So it's lazy, and hard to respect.

I figured as much but I thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt and ask.

But I did enjoy KnasserII's video link (or shot at me, depending on how you look at it). Very humorous. Even if there is a difference between proper term usage and actually using grammar and punctuation.

Your argument was based on an assumption that PCs shouldn't be able to beat named characters...<mega-snip>

Good grief, this is getting out of hand. Too many words spent on a misinterpretation and you haven't kept the context thread.

That's a rather D&D mindset.

No, that's what I'm reacting against. The main reasons stated for people wanting these stats is so they can compare firehoses or be those people. This kind of thing would never enter my game (despite some people's weird insistence that it would). If I made a mistake it was even bothering to entertain the thought experiment of their inclusion. So: their stats are irrelevant to me, and it simply comes down to me selfishly not wanting FFG to waste their time on such things (except, as noted, where they could be useful, as in JoY).

The SW universe is huge, there's really no limit. I have no idea why anyone would need the iconic characters, it reminds me of some really dumb games I was subjected to "back in the day", where we'd be playing D&D, and then the GM would have Captain Kirk and Spock pop into the bar, start a brawl, and beam out. I don't have much patience for that kind of geekery.

I'm just trying to understand if his errors are due to English being a second or third language or the laziness of text-speak or just a lack of caring.

All other languages use punctuation, and he doesn't use any. So it's lazy, and hard to respect.

I figured as much but I thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt and ask.

But I did enjoy KnasserII's video link (or shot at me, depending on how you look at it). Very humorous. Even if there is a difference between proper term usage and actually using grammar and punctuation.

Well, if a shot, then the friendliest kind! "Could care less" drives me crazy but I wanted to be funny about it rather than rude.

Your argument was based on an assumption that PCs shouldn't be able to beat named characters...<mega-snip>

Good grief, this is getting out of hand. Too many words spent on a misinterpretation and you haven't kept the context thread.

I don't agree. You said things like the iconic characters must be "top of their game". I pointed out that's an assumption on your part and not actually backed up by many things in the OT. I also pointed out that this in no way supported a reason why PCs shouldn't match or exceed them. Again, that's not a misinterpretation - I directly responded to what you actually said. If it's a misinterpretation then by all means show where but just dismissing my entire post when everything I wrote was related to what you said and supported...

That's a rather D&D mindset.

No, that's what I'm reacting against.

The "D&D mindset" I referred to was the one that presumes the most important characters in a story or setting are the most individually powerful. And you made exactly this case when you wrote that if these characters weren't the best the story wouldn't be about them.

The main reasons stated for people wanting these stats is so they can compare firehoses or be those people.

And this is what I strongly object to and what several people have been saying is NOT the case. As I wrote, you are dismissive of having stats because you look down on those who want them as being people who are just on some tawdry power trip to boost their egos. Firstly, that's not the case. Secondly, if people want to beat Vader as the big triumph of their story, let 'em why shouldn't the game facilitate that - easier to ignore the stats if you don't want them than to create them if you do.

So: their stats are irrelevant to me, and it simply comes down to me selfishly not wanting FFG to waste their time on such things (except, as noted, where they could be useful, as in JoY).

Which is what I wrote - you don't want them in there because they're not useful to you. That's a fair argument but we'd probably all like the book to be tailored to our exact needs so it's not a very strong argument. There are things that take up far more space that people object to far less aggressively. And it's not the argument you have been making anyway. You've been arguing why people shouldn't want the stats and looking down on those who do as "just wanting to compare firehoses".

I'm included in those who do so it's me you're insulting there.

The SW universe is huge, there's really no limit. I have no idea why anyone would need the iconic characters, it reminds me of some really dumb games I was subjected to "back in the day", where we'd be playing D&D, and then the GM would have Captain Kirk and Spock pop into the bar, start a brawl, and beam out. I don't have much patience for that kind of geekery.

I'm not sure how you get Star Trek in D&D from having Vader in Star Wars. One seems a lot more consistent and expected than the other.

Anyway, short version - I don't think there is anything wrong with us wanting to see some stats and I don't like being looked down on for wanting them, honestly.

I get the feeling that putting iconics to paper is a low priority for FFG. While an interesting exercise their value varies too much. Some people want them, some don't, some would adjust them if using them, others would just create them whole. It would be a use of resources with, in all likelihood, little return. Taking up space better suited to other stat blocks. As an online resource I could maybe see it and then people could download it or not. But then they would have to have someone actually do it taking time away from paid projects or in addition to. And that may not be something they want to fit into their schudule.

I would suggest FFG hold a competition. Submissions for iconic characters with the top ones put into online pdf resource to be downloaded. I'm sure a few people around here wouldn't mind contributing to such a project.

Anyway, short version - I don't think there is anything wrong with us wanting to see some stats and I don't like being looked down on for wanting them, honestly.

Well, as ever, disagree with the former, at least if FFG has to produce them. However, fair enough on the latter.

I still disagree with your interpretation of what I was saying, I feel like you're stretching the intent. But please don't provide me with another wall-of-text deconstruction...this argument is just not worth it. I already said what I meant to say in post 44 of this thread, the rest was, if you like, me just responding in irritation to being told I was "bound to" include iconics in my own game, and I shouldn't have bothered to respond that way.

Do you people suggest to add more than 3 Adversary in cases like this?

And that's why the stats are useful! They help people establish a baseline to work from.

Darth Vader is a human, that base line is easy: 2,2,2,2,2,2 after that it is all a matter of opinion.

Oddly enough I used Peace Keeper to begin with given how often I saw her commanding troops, and then went Soresu Defender.

Case in point.

More than opinion its concept (developers opinion XD). For example for Brawn:

- 2 is an average Human (Leia?)

- 3 is for a human well fitted (Luke?)

- 4 if for a really strong human or a strong alien (maybe Chewie?)

And so on...

This remembers me the: A is for A-Wing XD

I mean, when developers said "Our scale goes from 1 to 6" (7 with cyber), in what where they thinking about?

Usain Bolt is a 4? A 5? Or just have 5 Ranks on Atheltics and 2 or 3 Athletics/Resilence at Rank 4 or 5?

More than a personal opinion is the developers grade of comprehension from thei game "logic".

This remember me a post in Anima RPG where a lot of people asked about (to mesure the "world scale") stats of the weakest creature/NPC and the stronger one. In that forum some people asked for the Empress stats, just because the description said the she was the stronger one in the world.

So, more than just "this guy has 4", its more like a "looking to understand their conceptual view". My players character has 5 Brawn (he's about 1,97m and 98kg, really well fitted). Its correct that 5 or its a 4 but with talents that power up strenght-related skills?

Thanks

PS: QUESTION: Vehicles stats are also considered stats to you? (to everyone)

Oddly enough I used Peace Keeper to begin with given how often I saw her commanding troops, and then went Soresu Defender. I can see that this may be an odd approach, though. From recollection it took me about 150 bonus XP to get her up to what we see on screen. And then the projected adult version I plan to use in the game took her to about 200XP more on top of that. I found I had everything I thought she'd realistically have by that point.

Very interesting choice, and a bit controversial since by fluff Ashoka used Shien, any particular reason you chose Soresu, beside it being a career spec?

How did you spread the points? when i try to build the iconic charcters i am alwsy in doubt how to balance their saber spec with the Force spec, and the skills. I guess that in her adult version you managed to give her at least FR2 (which is a bloody long way in peacekeer)?

Would you care to post your build, it think it would fit with the thread theme.