I would like to discuss the recent rule change about damaging a lightsaber.

There are examples in the movies of lightsabers being destroyed. There are examples in the EU of lightsabers being damaged but still somewhat functional.

In previous core books, lightsabers were immune to sunder.

I believe the reason they were made immune to sunder was that they were rare and expensive weapons, and replacing them was perhaps too daunting of a task. If a lightsaber made its way into the game, it was not to be squandered.

In FAD, we have a system with a range of lightsabers, from the Shoto hilt to Pikes. There are curved and extended hilts. We have a rudimentary system from which to narrate the construction of lightsabers.

While it might be argued that Sunder doesn't work because the majority of the lightsaber is the blade, which cannot be sundered, I do not see how the hilt itself warrants such protection, especially not large versions such as lightsaber pikes.

The fact that the hilt is in your hand is irrelevant because you could sunder a holdout blaster or brass knuckles.

I am not sure I like the idea that lightsabers should be as easily sundered as any other weapon, but I feel that it should have damage states (minor, moderate, major, p. 119).

Here I would like to discuss other options.

1) Resistant to Sunder: Perhaps the lightsaber should simply be more resistant to sunder? Introduce a quality or rule similar to the Massive rule for starships, that increases the number of Threat required to sunder a particular piece of gear? If so, what other equipment might such a quality apply to?

2) Immune to Sunder, but able to be damaged through other means? If so, what other means, and under what circumstances might a lightsaber be damaged? How would this apply to other equipment?

3) Anything else?

Personally I'm contemplating pulling the Sunder Quality entirely, or switching it to something like so:

"Sunder allows the user to upgrade the severity of Item Damage by 1 step per Advantage when using 2 Triumph to Damage a weapon."

In my home game this means to outright destroy a weapon would take 2 Triumph, an attack by a weapon with Sunder, and spending 2 Advantages.

But I'm not partial to the Sunder quality anyway, so your mileage may differ.

To answer your Question #2, by the RAW 2 Triumph can be used to damage/destroy equipment, this currently includes (and was specifically called out in the recent F&D Beta Update) Lightsabers.

After thinking about it (and watching 4 hours of the clone wars series), I began to wonder how often destroying a saber really happens. We see it in TPM with Maul's double, we see it in Attack of the clones when Anakin's saber is damaged in the factory.

Other than that, it's hard for me to remember when a LS actually gets damaged. (I'm still refreshing my Clone wars knowledge). Also, for this I'm discounting most EU sources, since we have a good number of saber battles to use in the non-legends category.

So I think this is a situation that should be fairly uncommon.

I don't have a problem with the lightsaber being immune. It's a very rare occurrence in the media. I think it's more effective as a narrative device, not as something that the characters (PC or NPC) can just do with ease every time they meet a lightsaber-swinging opponent...which means I'm also fine with the double-triumph damaging alternative, since the frequency of that should be rare enough, and the characters might want to spend their triumphs on other things.

I'd allow a double-bladed or pike to remain functional after a two Triumph destruction, maybe with a destiny point flip and it served the narrative. Rather than new qualities or changing around Sunder I would just have a side-bar in the equipment section that says larger damaged lightsabers can function as a regular sized one after being "destroyed" with GM's permission.

One interesting thing about the rules as currently written, is that it doesn't matter if the weapon has the Sunder quality, two Triumphs is all it takes.

This means an unarmed human with two ranks in Brawling could potentially destroy a lightsaber (or, as evileeyor reminds, any other piece of equipment) in a single hit.

Since Triumph is not canceled by despair, the above has odds of 144:1 (/Han), which is a bit less than 0.7% of the time. Of course, as skill goes higher this increases.

I have always thought that Sunder was too easy to trigger (one Advantage, as opposed to two for most triggered qualities) in any case, though I feel that evileeyor kicks the pendulum a bit far the other direction in his rendition.

How about changing Sunder to require a Triumph instead of an Advantage, and removing the new special rule about two Triumphs destroying a thing outright?

One interesting thing about the rules as currently written, is that it doesn't matter if the weapon has the Sunder quality, two Triumphs is all it takes.

This means an unarmed human with two ranks in Brawling could potentially destroy a lightsaber (or, as evileeyor reminds, any other piece of equipment) in a single hit.

Since Triumph is not canceled by despair, the above has odds of 144:1 (/Han), which is a bit less than 0.7% of the time. Of course, as skill goes higher this increases.

I have always thought that Sunder was too easy to trigger (one Advantage, as opposed to two for most triggered qualities) in any case, though I feel that evileeyor kicks the pendulum a bit far the other direction in his rendition.

How about changing Sunder to require a Triumph instead of an Advantage, and removing the new special rule about two Triumphs destroying a thing outright?

That would make Sunder inconsistent with AoR and EotE. Also, you have to activate the Sunder quality 4 times to actually destroy an item.

This means an unarmed human with two ranks in Brawling could potentially destroy a lightsaber (or, as evileeyor reminds, any other piece of equipment) in a single hit.

LOL.

I have always thought that Sunder was too easy to trigger (one Advantage, as opposed to two for most triggered qualities) in any case, though I feel that evileeyor kicks the pendulum a bit far the other direction in his rendition.

However...

I'm also of the mind that could just be the Narrative:

PC: So I got 3 success and 2 advantages... I think I'll just do my 10 damage and recover 2 strain.

GM: Okay, let's see... "Your saber flashes out splitting the droid's blaster rifle in twain rendering him useless in the battle", Bob go ahead and remove one of those droid togs from next to you, and, let's see, now it's an enemy's turn...

How about changing Sunder to require a Triumph instead of an Advantage, and removing the new special rule about two Triumphs destroying a thing outright?

That would make Sunder inconsistent with AoR and EotE. Also, you have to activate the Sunder quality 4 times to actually destroy an item.

I'm OK with the idea of errata.

It was broken, but didn't matter... now it does, so fix it!

I'm also thinking about maybe making Sunder 3 Advantages. That's almost equal to a Triumph, but often far, far easier to get.

This would also be a decent solution.

I'm also thinking about maybe making Sunder 3 Advantages. That's almost equal to a Triumph, but often far, far easier to get.

This would also be a decent solution.

That would make Sunder inconsistent with AoR and EotE. Also, you have to activate the Sunder quality 4 times to actually destroy an item.

I'm OK with the idea of errata.

It was broken, but didn't matter... now it does, so fix it!

How was it broken but didn't matter before? The mechanic was fine. If you're referring entirely to how sunder works with lightsabers they fixed they by making them immune to sunder and gave you the suggestion of allowing you to spend 2 triumph to destroy/disable a lightsaber if you want to go that route.

Playing devil's advocate here...

I can see where FFG is coming from in re-instituting the "can't use Sunder on lightsabers" as they tend to go from being perfectly fine to ruined, with Maul's double-saber getting severed being the only major exception. And seeing how tightly packed with the required tech and crystal a lightsaber hilt is, there's really not a whole lot of room for other degrees of damage.

That being said, I'd much rather have the option to use Sunder on a lightsaber outside of the "spend 2 Triumph" aspect, though again with the added bit of rules text that this update has about the possibility of salvaging a 'saber crystal (with its modifications) from a damaged/destroyed hilt.

And as was noted, this does make Resist Disarm a pretty darn handy talent to have, though perhaps too handy since it can easily negate a double Triumph effect for the low cost of 2 strain, which is not that big a deal for a Makashi Duelist given they have plenty of Grit talents and Intense Presence (with Presence being a key stat for them) in the spec tree.

That would make Sunder inconsistent with AoR and EotE. Also, you have to activate the Sunder quality 4 times to actually destroy an item.

I'm OK with the idea of errata.

It was broken, but didn't matter... now it does, so fix it!

How was it broken but didn't matter before? The mechanic was fine. If you're referring entirely to how sunder works with lightsabers they fixed they by making them immune to sunder and gave you the suggestion of allowing you to spend 2 triumph to destroy/disable a lightsaber if you want to go that route.

That's a fair question, and you're right, it was wrong of me to say that. The problem is now we have an item that should be damageable but maybe not as damageable as other items, if for no other reason than the fact that it's about 10x the price of, e.g. a blaster rifle. Destroying it out of hand is going to irritate people.

I do not agree with the 2 Triumph to destroy an item rule. I think it is a poorly thought-out rule that should be removed, even though two Triumphs are rarely generated.

I feel that there should be some quality to reflect the increased difficulty of damaging some items (without jumping immediately to Cortosis and Cortosis-like effects).

Perhaps a quality like:

Nimble - This weapon is easily and quickly moved by the wielder. In order to Sunder this item, you must make an Aim - Called Shot as part of the attack with a weapon capable of inflicting Sunder.

or:

Sturdy - This item is built to withstand the rigors of combat in a variety of environments, and is resistant to damage. In order to Sunder this item, you must spend an additional Advantage.

One or both of the above might be a good quality that could be applied to Lightsabers to allow them to be Sundered, but not as easily as other items.

The only change i would make is that you need 2 triumphs and sunder to sunder a lightsaber. Keep in mind i think the reason you can't really sunder a lightsaber easily is because most of it is energy blade with a small moving target that is easy to move out of the way for someone who is skilled.

The only change i would make is that you need 2 triumphs and sunder to sunder a lightsaber. Keep in mind i think the reason you can't really sunder a lightsaber easily is because most of it is energy blade with a small moving target that is easy to move out of the way for someone who is skilled.

On the list of "small moving targets that are easy to move out of the way for someone who is skilled" are things like brass knuckles and Vibroknives, but they are not immune to Sunder.

Would it rude if I were to write, "I feel that people don't read things, they just post."?

Would it rude if I were to write, "I feel that people don't read things, they just post."?

And seeing how tightly packed with the required tech and crystal a lightsaber hilt is, there's really not a whole lot of room for other degrees of damage.

IF FFG moved away from the double triumph, I'd say adding a nimble quality would be the way to do it, as was suggested above.

However, adding qualities would mean potentially rexamining other weapons in the same context. it would add even more qualities to a LS, and still doesn't show the difference in sundering difficulty between a lightsaber hilt and brass knuckles (to use the above example)..

I think double triumph is good, as it goes across the board for any item, LS or not. and as far as resisting disarm being too strong... well, how often does that talent come up prior to this rule? If it's too broken on a double triumph ability, did people complain when you could negate sunder before? it seems like the talent isn't really any more powerful (I mean 4 advantage prior could sunder any weapon), but it's this idea of negating a double triumph ability that suddenly makes it "too good."

Imagine having a talent that was good at the extremely niche thing it was meant to do.

2 triumphs are 2 story changing power level effects being used to do one thing. Or at least that is my understanding of a triumph.

But you're assuming that the enemy has this talent and you are using them.

9/10 times it will be the other way around. Seriously, how many NPCs in the beta have resist disarm.

As A GM I believe the descriptor that would apply to me if I gave even "normal" Nemeses that talent (or used it in that instance) would be something...indelicate.

As a player, if I had that talent, I would want the GM to use that on me so that i got some mileage out of the talent. not every time, but once in a while. Otherwise you just rob your players of an experience.

I still think this is a mountain out of a molehill. this is such a niche case (character has resist disarm, and has 2 triumphs scored against it, and it's feasible and worth while to destroy LS rather than simply crit the sucker and accomplish other story goals) that we may be worrying about it's impact a touch more than is necessary.

Not that it's not worth discussing, but it's not somethign that will be all that common.

As I understand it, the 2 Triumph to destroy something isn't necessarily a "hard rule", it's more of a suggestion as to what you could potentially spend Triumph on, like many things on the "spending X in combat" list.

As I understand it, the 2 Triumph to destroy something isn't necessarily a "hard rule", it's more of a suggestion as to what you could potentially spend Triumph on, like many things on the "spending X in combat" list.

The thing is though, is that most people, particularly those new to the system, see the chart as being the hard rule - with anything outside of it being creative things that vary group-by-group.

My current thinking:

Replace the text: "Lightsabers are immune to Sunder," with "Lightsaber crystals are immune to Sunder. If this weapon is destroyed, the lightaber crystal will remain as a salvageable component."

I think this solves all potential problems, and is consistent with what we know about Lightsaber crystals. Yes, a character might lose his heirloom-level-sentimentality weapon, but a replacement hilt is about the same price as replacing any other weapon, so it's not like they're being more significantly impacted than the Bounty Hunter who loses his personalized blaster rifle.

I'm honestly good with them being immune to Sunder. You can't sunder the blade of a lightsabre and the part that can be damaged is wrapped up in someone's hand. That's why Vader sliced off Luke's hand - it was a misguided Sunder attempt.

Maybe Sunder the Force Pikes and the Double ended lightsabre. But I feel even the latter case was just a double despair due to all the ranks in Adversary Obi Wan and Qui Gon had. I'd personally keep them all immune. Force Pike would be a pretty crappy weapon if it were the one lightsabre that could be sundered and every time you went up against another Jedi / Sith they just destroyed your weapon. Again. So find some reason Force Pike is immune just so it makes sense that it exists. And the rest keep immune as they should be anyway.