Maybe there is also a "Force rational use" philosophy, but, this is probably another story

Hello gentlemen nd ladies

This has been a great response to my topic, I'm very happy.

But I think some people may have misinterpreted my post, either that or I wasn't clear enough.

Probably the latter.

Either way, what I really mean to say was that I wouldn't mind seeing a partially or fully made jedi, being one from the available media. I particularly would like, someone like obi want or even anakin, in an attmept to be able to understand where these people were at in their prime. So that I can understand what it was really like for them to be at that point, that we all see in the movies, that level of power that makes them iconic.

I hope I have expressed my reasoning.

I don't want to see any Jedi started up if it's not in a published scenario — which they could cut down on, FFG has a tendency to release too many of those for their game and too few splat books (WFRPG3 was a great example of that). We already know what a "full on" Jedi looks like from "Jewel of Yavin" so it's not that hard to extrapolate. Deal done, lets hope that they move on to producing world books ASAP.

Please don't let them waste space on characters like little orphan Annie or Yoda, WotC wasted so much core book space starting out EEEEVVERRYY Jedi that had had more than 3 seconds of screen time.

Agree, but I understand that for a wide RPG world they must go off-canon and add tons of chracters to give a spark of life to the universe. I love canon but I understand that none canon facts are REQUIRED to roleplay.

If they only stat movie characters with dialogs... well, not so much roleplay will be available XD

Whiteape i understand your point, but i don't think we'll see them statted unless they come up in an adventure. And even then it may be a partial profile , like the one of Lando in JoY. Btw in JoY you can see the stats of a normal jedi knight, maybe a bit past her prime but still a full knight.

As for Obi-Wan and Anakin, you can try to build them by what yo usee them do in the movie, it's susprising how little xp it takes to replicate their actions actually. Ghostofman built a convicncing TPM Obi-Wan with just 150 xp. That was part of my answer to Rossbert earlier, accordng to FFG it doesn't take an awful lot of xp or FR to make a Jedi.

The Inquisitor rules in F&D Beta seem a good starting place for me to make Force-sensitive antagonists for the PCs).

That was my instant reaction when I read the thread title. Those rules serves as a good starting point to make badass villains, but also as guidelines when creating potential badass allies.

I'd like to see Asoka as she is now. As she left the order before becoming a proper Jedi and because she was off their books and had disappeared before Order #66, she is the jedi most likely to survive. I'm probably going to use her in my game at some point so stats would be useful.

1) My favourite character, next to Ventress, so I'm torn...

2) But I still would ask "why?" If she's an NPC, will the PCs face off against her? If so...are you sure you wanna go there? It's worth noting that most of the time when the Jedi face off against other sentients they don't strike for damage, they sunder and disable and strike for Strain...witness the actions of Mace during the Season 6 episodes...he really only gets lethal with the gundark, and only when he has to. Ahsoka shows similar restraint, even against Visla, only striking his rocket pack (... "Nice try Jedi"...."I didn't miss...")

1) Really? I mean, I get Ventress, she's awesome. Admittedly Ahsoka gets a lot cooler towards the end of the series. So I'll actually agree with you here

2) I have a question concerning this, sort of on the side of all of this, but still relevant: as far as I understand the FAQ/errata you need to succeed on a combat check to use weapon qualities, including Sunder. Now, I haven't got the FaD beta yet, but considering this, how do you attack with a lightsaber, succeed, Sunder, but not cause wound, and potentially killing, an opponent? I might've forgotten some rules just now, but I suddenly wondered...

As for the topic of this thread: I wouldn't mind NPC/Adversary write ups of any Jedi, but I probably wouldn't use them. Anything with stats can be killed, and I'd not - in my game - want Kenobi, Skywalker (either of the two) or any other Jedi that survived to be killed by my players.

As for the topic of this thread: I wouldn't mind NPC/Adversary write ups of any Jedi, but I probably wouldn't use them. Anything with stats can be killed, and I'd not - in my game - want Kenobi, Skywalker (either of the two) or any other Jedi that survived to be killed by my players.

There's another difference in this game...with D20 you're pretty much expected to retire your character by level 20, so they could put the stats for Yoda, etc at the top and scale accordingly. However, in this game, theoretically you don't have to stop advancing your character until you've bought every talent tree, maxed all your skills, maxed all your characteristics (including through cybernetics), and bought every Force tree. That character will slam Palpatine around like a toy.

So there really is no point to statting these characters, it's a waste of the developer's time and book space.

Partially agree whafrog. Edge seems that its focused on "a consecutive campaign and encounters module game". The main senstation, due to quick "XP/Level Up" gives that sensation.

Not so much people seems that make a continous gameplay with PC's with more than 2,000 XP (not so much, but my own players are one of them XD).

Maybe I'm wrong but this seems the general sensation. So, stated characters is a way to say "in your story you can change things".

I use to respect canon and story so much I can, but I don't make appear Holy Archangels every time a PC can kill Luke Skywalker XD I prefer that they don't do it, but its a choice.

And backing to my own posts, stated chars can satisfy the three positions:

- People who don't want them, just ignore them.

- People who don't agree 100%, can change them.

- People who want them, will love it!

I want them, but trying to be fair, I think that this options can satisfy everyone. Someone can trully hate combat classes in roleplay and only play professionals (not-adventurers) but the fair option would be that someone create combat classes that can be ignored

"- People who don't want them, just ignore them.

- People who don't agree 100%, can change them.

- People who want them, will love it!"

Precisely my thought on the matter. Too many people say they don't want FFG to release stats, but why deny those of us who DO want them. If you don't want stats, don't use them and leave them to those who do. I've played many, MANY rpg's over the years, and I've encountered a lot of expansions/source books with new rules/stats/powers in them, many of which I chose not to use. I didn't condemn the writers for releasing said rules, I just chose to ignore them.

If FFG released a book with Vaders stats in and my players found them, I can tell them I'm not using that particular write-up if I choose to. Why is that so difficult?

Hell, even some kind of benchmark table would be nice...

"Agility 1 = Jabba, 2 = Obi-wan, 3 = Han, 4 = Luke, 5 = Maul" etc, just to give us some idea what the designers were aiming for.

Oh my.

I have just noticed, so happy to have my first hot topic. Thanks guys

No problem

"- People who don't want them, just ignore them.

- People who don't agree 100%, can change them.

- People who want them, will love it!"

Precisely my thought on the matter. Too many people say they don't want FFG to release stats, but why deny those of us who DO want them. If you don't want stats, don't use them and leave them to those who do. I've played many, MANY rpg's over the years, and I've encountered a lot of expansions/source books with new rules/stats/powers in them, many of which I chose not to use. I didn't condemn the writers for releasing said rules, I just chose to ignore them.

If FFG released a book with Vaders stats in and my players found them, I can tell them I'm not using that particular write-up if I choose to. Why is that so difficult?

Hell, even some kind of benchmark table would be nice...

"Agility 1 = Jabba, 2 = Obi-wan, 3 = Han, 4 = Luke, 5 = Maul" etc, just to give us some idea what the designers were aiming for.

This is exactly what I was going for, some form of recognition by using icons of the game, movies and tv shows so that players, gm the sort will have some form of source material to go off when trying to explain actions in game. It's always easier for me to explain something when I have a good idea of how it may look, I can easily explain to my players how their boasters fire and the like, cause I have stormtroopers or boba fett in my mind as a sorce material/ comparison, and stat wise most of them are already there.

I don't think I'm asking for too much.

I'd rather they spend the page space on stuff that more folks would generally find useful, such as new specs, new talents, new gear, new vehicles, new Signature Abilities, or even tips and suggestions to GMs on running games of a certain type/theme.

I don't know if people from FFG are reading this but, create a poll will be really useful

I don't know if people from FFG are reading this but, create a poll will be really useful

I agree at first I was against stating the main characters but after getting Jewel of Yavin and seeing Lando stats and with us interacting with him during the adventure made it feel like our characters was part of the Star Wars universe living and breathing interacting with one of the icons of the universe I actually think it cheapens the game if the iconic characters aren't stated I wanted to duel vader who cares if he killed my character but to have official stats and to say your character held off vader is pretty cool and every system stated the iconic characters why can't FGG and for those that don't want them stated then ignore the stats

If the "iconic" character were important to an adventure the way that Lando was for Jewel of Yavin, that I wouldn't mind. It's the "let's stat up all these characters that will likely never see use in many games just for the heck of it" mindset that I have an issue with.

If the "iconic" character were important to an adventure the way that Lando was for Jewel of Yavin, that I wouldn't mind. It's the "let's stat up all these characters that will likely never see use in many games just for the heck of it" mindset that I have an issue with.

Why????

="1254386" timestamp="1410217623"]

If the "iconic" character were important to an adventure the way that Lando was for Jewel of Yavin, that I wouldn't mind. It's the "let's stat up all these characters that will likely never see use in many games just for the heck of it" mindset that I have an issue with.

Why????

disregard my apologies

Why????

Because!!!!

I guess for me:

a) I don't get the mindset that needs to reference *any* of the movie characters at all for SW stories. Their stories have been done, I don't need to play near them or intersect at all.

b) I had enough "movie stats" with WEG (dear lord, how they used that for filler), and the D20 ones never made sense.

It's a waste of space and precious dev time. I want stories and mechanics from FFG, not pointless stats. (As DM said, statting Lando made sense in that context, so I'd be fine with that kind of thing.) If you want those stats, make them yourself, it's not that hard.

Somebody said earlier FFG should make them and then people like me could ignore them. But then there's less all around and I have to pay extra. So let's flip that around: the people who want them should make them, that way FFG has more time to make something new and unique and everybody wins.

Why????

Because!!!!

I guess for me:

a) I don't get the mindset that needs to reference *any* of the movie characters at all for SW stories. Their stories have been done, I don't need to play near them or intersect at all.

b) I had enough "movie stats" with WEG (dear lord, how they used that for filler), and the D20 ones never made sense.

It's a waste of space and precious dev time. I want stories and mechanics from FFG, not pointless stats. (As DM said, statting Lando made sense in that context, so I'd be fine with that kind of thing.) If you want those stats, make them yourself, it's not that hard.

Somebody said earlier FFG should make them and then people like me could ignore them. But then there's less all around and I have to pay extra. So let's flip that around: the people who want them should make them, that way FFG has more time to make something new and unique and everybody wins.

I respect your opinion please understand that but Well as far as the "mindset" it's a game for one and I would love to see the developer's interruption of the Star Wars characters because it gives a measure of how our characters compare with them and as far as "their" stories being done well you see we are in "their" story and in the same time frame as the iconic characters per the setting of the core books it's set in the original trilogy if the developer's didn't wanna have this issue they could have set the setting 200 years after RotJ so your bound to run in to the iconic characters sooner or later

Well that's just it. I don't get the need to compare my character to anything in the media. It's not a contest, what's the point? What matters is the context of the story they're in, not "Oooo, I'm a better pilot than Han Solo, somebody grab me a sock!"

And second, I can guarantee my players will never run into the iconic characters.

Some people's vision of the SW galaxy feels way too small.

If you want to have your players run into Darth Vader wouldn't it be better if you stated him up as to do exactly what you want from him?

I respect your opinion please understand that but Well as far as the "mindset" it's a game for one and I would love to see the developer's interruption of the Star Wars characters...

I don't care what Sam Stewart thinks Darth Vader is to him, I care what Darth Vader means to me. If I ever want my characters to interact with Darth Vader, as I understand, he is one of the most dangerous being in the Star Wars films. He can kill my party in a heart beat if he chose to.

Well that's just it. I don't get the need to compare my character to anything in the media. It's not a contest, what's the point? What matters is the context of the story they're in, not "Oooo, I'm a better pilot than Han Solo, somebody grab me a sock!"

And second, I can guarantee my players will never run into the iconic characters.

Some people's vision of the SW galaxy feels way too small.

If you want to have your players run into Darth Vader wouldn't it be better if you stated him up as to do exactly what you want from him?

I respect your opinion please understand that but Well as far as the "mindset" it's a game for one and I would love to see the developer's interruption of the Star Wars characters...

I don't care what Sam Stewart thinks Darth Vader is to him, I care what Darth Vader means to me. If I ever want my characters to interact with Darth Vader, as I understand, he is one of the most dangerous being in the Star Wars films. He can kill my party in a heart beat if he chose to.

No I rather not I'm not a GM I rather the developer's do it I mean we are playing their "vision" of Star Wars are we not??? in every license game that you find that's out there every license game the developer's has there version of the main storyline characters of that product fleshed out to say " hey this is our version of the game and here how our system would interrupt obi wan kenobi to show our game system is like that product" really am I wrong???

You really don't need the movie characters to make it star wars. And I really don't want to see the FFG versions of characters. I think it is good that FFG is not putting out every character. I think it serves the game better. If you need someone for your game make what you need.

All FFG making characters does is tend to lead to arguments about how they stated the character out. So by not doing that they have less arguments about how they did a character.