The truly silly thing is that hiding behind a big stone pillar is exactly the same as having a personal shield in the current system of defense. And they don't stack. When really a personal shield should be far superior to hiding behind a stone pillar AND they should totally stack. With the pillar making it harder to hit, and the shield making it harder to damage.

I could be wrong, but doesn't defence from different sources stack?

Unless I'm reading the rules wrong, they don't.

Defense ratings do not stack.

For example, if a character wearing armour that provides a defense rating also takes cover, then he uses the better of the two ratings (the one from his armour or the one from his cover), not the total.

Which basically means that you'll never need to take cover if you have a personal shield generator. But as cover is nearly always available, why would you blow 10,000 credits on a personal shield generator at all?

Unless I'm reading the rules wrong, they don't.

Yup, this is definitely the case.

They do not stack because the both provide a "static defense value" (but, the prone condition, and bad light, etc do stack).

I read it in the SWE02_FAQ, so it think this was a rule that changed at some stage. The reason, apparently, is to avoid getting too many blacks into the dice pool!

Which basically means that you'll never need to take cover if you have a personal shield generator. But as cover is nearly always available, why would you blow 10,000 credits on a personal shield generator at all?

Very good point. Now you've really got me started on this one...

Yeah, My group house-ruled a complete ignoring of that restriction. We allow all black dice to stack.

It depends on the wording of the source of the defense. If it says something like "you gain ranged defense of 1", then it doesn't stack. If it says "you gain +1 ranged defense", then it's added to your already-calculated defense.

In the FaD beta, both cover and guarded stance has the "+1" wording, which means you add +1 ranged/melee defense to your total.

I could be wrong, but doesn't defence from different sources stack?

In the FaD beta, both cover and guarded stance has the "+1" wording, which means you add +1 ranged/melee defense to your total.

Cover was errataed in EotE and AoR to not stack anymore. I read somewhere that it's being fixed that way for all "Defense/Deflection" bonuses, but that could be misinformation.

Nah, not really. They make you harder to hit in the current system. They don't do a flat out damage reduction, which better represents them.

The current system would make sense if they were, say, holo-fields which project multiple false images of the target.

youre right and wrong. They make you harder to hit but they also reduce damage. Remember if a setback die from the sheild generates a failure but the attack still hits then it hits for less damage than it would have without that generated failure. In other words I think the setback dice added from sheilds and armor represent the shot being more likely to glance or otherwise bounce off the sheild/armor. After all it doesn't make sense otherwise as no armor would then justifiably be able to add any setback dice since no armor would likely be making you faster or harder to target (quite the opposite actually)

I tend to agree with BadMotivator that setback dice simulate cover or bad conditions (e.g. bad visibility) much better than they simulate the effect of a shield.

A shield really just absorbs damage very much like armor.

What we must not forget is the "diminishing returns" effect of adding setback dice (or any dice). What I mean is, the first one has a much greater effect, then the second, and so on. After you have added about 5, additional dice are having like a 2% or 3% effect on your chance to hit, and this tends to 0% as you add more. I just don't think this is how shields, which can be built powerful enough to stop just about any attack, work.

In addition, if you already have a large dice pool (e.g. YYYGG), then adding a setback dice has much less effect than if you have a small pool (e.g. YG). (To be exact, 1 setback dice reduces the chance to hit an average difficulty with a pool of YYYGG by 4.5% and a pool of YG by 9%).

For me, this does not make sense, because why would the effectiveness of your shield be effected by the skill of the attacker?

I understand the designers in wanting to keep things simple. And I also understand that an RPG is not a perfect simulation.

But in this case, I think that they did not capture the spectacular effect (and importance) of a force field that you see in the Star Wars movies.

Again your getting this weird idea that if it stops the attack it's because the attack missed instead of the sheild simply flaring up stronger and deflecting the shot.

In other words a fail to hit doesn't neccessarily mean you missed much like a sword striking armor at the wrong angle might just be deflected off it's curves rather than simply not penetrated by its thickness/soak. If the setback did generates as failure but the attack still hits it looses a bit of its deadliness as it punches through the sheild.

Now if I was going to argue to simply make them better I'm all for that, but I'd rather see difficulty upgrades than just flat out soak as your exasperating munchkin issues by starting to allow more soak stacking.

Its rather limited soak stacking, simply because your shield is going to go down in a few hits. Its not like armor which is always there.

Basically a shield should provide a window of literal invulnerability, because that is what they do in the fluff, but attacking it reduces the window and eventually the shield collapses.

Currently, a personal shield generator is a horrendously expensive and largely useless piece of equipment. I really wouldn't care much if my target had one because I've got accurate 1 and can just aim for another and cancel out the shield. I should not be able to cancel a shield by aiming.

I should [not] be able to cancel a shield by aiming.

I like these Shield rules.

Its rather limited soak stacking, simply because your shield is going to go down in a few hits. Its not like armor which is always there.

Basically a shield should provide a window of literal invulnerability, because that is what they do in the fluff, but attacking it reduces the window and eventually the shield collapses.

Currently, a personal shield generator is a horrendously expensive and largely useless piece of equipment. I really wouldn't care much if my target had one because I've got accurate 1 and can just aim for another and cancel out the shield. I should be able to cancel a shield by aiming.

I'm not saying the rules are bad I'm just saying the criticisms that defense always accounts to missinf instead of simply deflecting are wrong. The sheilds certainly should be stronger, there we have no disagreement.

I wasn't arguing effectiveness I was arguing what it actually does and a setback dice does (potentially on each roll) reduce damage, it's not this "they miss or it does nothing if they hit" idea that was being pressed.

Again your getting this weird idea that if it stops the attack it's because the attack missed instead of the sheild simply flaring up stronger and deflecting the shot.

In other words a fail to hit doesn't neccessarily mean you missed much like a sword striking armor at the wrong angle might just be deflected off it's curves rather than simply not penetrated by its thickness/soak. If the setback did generates as failure but the attack still hits it looses a bit of its deadliness as it punches through the sheild.

Now if I was going to argue to simply make them better I'm all for that, but I'd rather see difficulty upgrades than just flat out soak as your exasperating munchkin issues by starting to allow more soak stacking.

I understand what you are saying Dark B. You are correct that a black reduces both chance of success, and the average number of successes. Therefore, it reduces damages, on average. So it does do something like what a shield would do.

I also see high soak values as providing balancing problems for GMs (particular a mixed party of low soakers, and one mega soaker, because the big soaker laughs off what would kill the others). So, in this respect, the shield idea is heading in the wrong direction.

However, I like the idea because it makes shields more important, and that is what they are in the films.

Thinks if the Droidekas. Those thing are deadly, and a real threat to Jedi, all because of the shields.

Nevertheless, to balance things out a bit, a rule like this for shields should probably go hand in hand with a reduction of soak somewhere else. For example the soak gained by Brawn is probably out of proportion (average Brawn of 2 is as good as laminate armor). But anyway, that would be going too far, oh well...

It depends on the wording of the source of the defense. If it says something like "you gain ranged defense of 1", then it doesn't stack. If it says "you gain +1 ranged defense", then it's added to your already-calculated defense.

In the FaD beta, both cover and guarded stance has the "+1" wording, which means you add +1 ranged/melee defense to your total.

Oggy, you're my savior! I was just wondering how I was going to sell the stacking idea to our GM! Now, I just looked it up in the Beta, and you are right. They only speak of adding black, whether it is cover, or shields, or other conditions.

Since the Beta is the most recent publication, it can only mean the designers also think it is a good idea to allow these things to stack after all.

I honestly got the impression (when the issue was discussed in a podcast, I think), that the non-stacking rule was introduces because the designers were worried that the player who only bought one or 2 dice packs would not have enough dice.

I think they got a bit of stick in the beginning because players complained that they now have to buy all new dice.

Anyway, whatever the reason, stacking makes sense, so the rules as stated in F&D are an improvement.

BTW: Thanks for getting all the stuff from the Beta into the Character Generator so quickly!

Maybe an effect like:

- Shields X: Add X Failure to attackers roll. As general concept what do you think?

Maybe an effect like:

- Shields X: Add X Failure to attackers roll. As general concept what do you think?

I just want to chime in. I don't have a problem with how shields work. It may be how I interpret the scene, but shields adding setback dice and the random nature can be explained as, if the shot gets through, as the shield cycling and reseting the moment a shot gets through, being temporarily overloaded. Or, the some blaster bolts from a dice roll fire several shots that cause an impacted computer console to explode showering the shielded user with shrapnel.

Just as a single dice roll doesn't mean a single pull of the trigger, a successful hit can be described as something beyond an impacting blaster bolt. Does this break the game? I feel it does not, and in fact changing things up, description wise (narratively), keeps the combat from I shoot-move-shoot bland combat.

But I'm probably playing the game wrong.

Semi-agree with you Blasted.

Mostly scenes show that shields sometimes fail, sometimes success as you say, but in some cases shields seems the difference between victory and defeat (imagine that with the voice of League of Legends XD).

Some shields seems invincible (or almost). Gungans, that massive shield in the first chapters from Clone Wars, Death Star II (I suposse it, if not the Endor assault was useless XD), Droidekas and probably a few more samples.

So, in general cases, Republic/Confederation capital ships seems that they take or not damage based on.... plot XD

But there is one clear thing that they transmit to us: Everyone is absolutelly terrified about loosing shields. So, based on this, some shields would be really useful, but again, shields mechanics are the same that hyperspace...PLOT.

PS: My main player is looking for nice people to create a competent group un League of Legends EU. Sorry for the off-topic XD

You might not want to refer to it as Soak.... as has been pointed out to me elsewhere Breach 1 ignores 10 Soak, and Droideka shouldn't be getting splattered by lightsabers in 1 hit.

Would/should someone protected by a shield be generally immune to lightsaber attacks? Looking at the battle between Maul and Qui-gon, they had to pause because of a force field between the two.

Would/should someone protected by a shield be generally immune to lightsaber attacks? Looking at the battle between Maul and Qui-gon, they had to pause because of a force field between the two.

They had to pause because of a something between them (energy field, shield, distortion wall, whatever).

Mostly I meant Droidekas, which instead of splattering, Qui-Jon and Obi ran from at the start of Phantom Menace.

It depends on the wording of the source of the defense. If it says something like "you gain ranged defense of 1", then it doesn't stack. If it says "you gain +1 ranged defense", then it's added to your already-calculated defense.

In the FaD beta, both cover and guarded stance has the "+1" wording, which means you add +1 ranged/melee defense to your total.

Oggy, you're my savior! I was just wondering how I was going to sell the stacking idea to our GM! Now, I just looked it up in the Beta, and you are right. They only speak of adding black, whether it is cover, or shields, or other conditions.

Since the Beta is the most recent publication, it can only mean the designers also think it is a good idea to allow these things to stack after all.

I honestly got the impression (when the issue was discussed in a podcast, I think), that the non-stacking rule was introduces because the designers were worried that the player who only bought one or 2 dice packs would not have enough dice.

I think they got a bit of stick in the beginning because players complained that they now have to buy all new dice.

Anyway, whatever the reason, stacking makes sense, so the rules as stated in F&D are an improvement.

BTW: Thanks for getting all the stuff from the Beta into the Character Generator so quickly!

No problem, but eeyore was right, Cover was errata'ed in at least EotE to read "gain 1 ranged defense". What's confusing is that they keep going back and forth with this. I'm assuming that, since FaD is the latest set of rules, then they're back to Cover and Guarded Stance adding to defense, rather than providing a set defense. But I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed in an update. So, use it while it's there

No problem, but eeyore was right, Cover was errata'ed in at least EotE to read "gain 1 ranged defense". What's confusing is that they keep going back and forth with this. I'm assuming that, since FaD is the latest set of rules, then they're back to Cover and Guarded Stance adding to defense, rather than providing a set defense. But I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed in an update. So, use it while it's there

As of the first Beta Update, it is back to cover not stacking with defense.

No problem, but eeyore was right, Cover was errata'ed in at least EotE to read "gain 1 ranged defense". What's confusing is that they keep going back and forth with this. I'm assuming that, since FaD is the latest set of rules, then they're back to Cover and Guarded Stance adding to defense, rather than providing a set defense. But I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed in an update. So, use it while it's there

As of the first Beta Update, it is back to cover not stacking with defense.

So they're at it again I hadn't noticed since I was mainly looking for character generation changes so I could update my apps.

They didn't change Guarded Stance, though, so I guess it's still +1 melee defense.

What's confusing is that they keep going back and forth with this. I'm assuming that, since FaD is the latest set of rules, then they're back to Cover and Guarded Stance adding to defense, rather than providing a set defense. But I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed in an update. So, use it while it's there

When F&D was written it's possible it hadn't been errataed yet and no one thought to check (then) Alpha rules for changes they were making, expecting to catch and correct as they went forward.

I've had that happen to me and people I worked with in the past.