Hehe.

Yeah, you have some valid points, but you don't seem to understand, but that's fine. I've become accustomed to that (not you specifically no, of course not, I'm not trying to provoke you). Sure, I probably come across as condescending, but there's another saying, where from doesn't really matter as geographical locale and origin is meaningless (unless you subscribe to archaic and outdated customs and notions), it goes like this: "It takes two to tango."

Discussion on characters starting neutral or already fallen to the dark side or having risen to be paragons of the light are functionally arguing one key component: Where does the story start. The mention of Darth Maul is a perfect reference.

Character creation can take place at various points in the character's life. If the game starts with child characters, fresh and not yet exposed to the light and dark of the world, then Maul should start as neutrally aligned and should develop over the course of the game.

However, not all stories start with the birth of the main characters, and more often start later in life. To deny the option to start aligned light or dark is to deny that the character could have past experiences that shape them. Using the movies as examples, Maul's character creation was at the start of The Phantom Menace. He is a Dark Side character, for sure. He is already Sith, he carries the Darth title, he is a villain. Later, during The Clone Wars TV show, his backstory is explored. The reasons he started that way are given. But his creation as a character didn't begin with a neutral image - It began shrouded in darkness, having embraced the Sith way.

This is not to say that all characters should begin aligned with the dark or the light, because there are most certainly people who walk a path between the two. Possibly even the majority of people. But that's no reason to say that a character cannot have morality shaping experiences from before the starting point of the game.

Again, I am not dogmatically stating that you must start somewhere in between dark and light. If you want your players to start as a dark side demoniac or light side angelic then do so and have fun with that. House rule it and be on your way. However, as Sam Stewart stated recently on an episode of the podcast I never listen to, it is assumed that the characters would start out on the light side. I have read no convincing reason to start otherwise as written in an official set of core rules devoted to Star Wars role-playing. Deviate as it please one, however, it is my opinion that such should be that, a deviation of one's own conjuration. Oy.

Again, I am not dogmatically stating that you must start somewhere in between dark and light. If you want your players to start as a dark side demoniac or light side angelic then do so and have fun with that. House rule it and be on your way. However, as Sam Stewart stated recently on an episode of the podcast I never listen to, it is assumed that the characters would start out on the light side. I have read no convincing reason to start otherwise as written in an official set of core rules devoted to Star Wars role-playing. Deviate as it please one, however, it is my opinion that such should be that, a deviation of one's own conjuration. Oy.

Why should it have to be a house rule? In D&D, it's assumed players will be good. But the option for evil is there. It's not a house rule. It's presented as an option. Does it get as much attention? No.

I don't see an issue with presenting the dark side as an option, while still focusing on the light. It doesn't make light side games any worse by being an option. The GM is still fully within rights to forbid it as an option, and heck, I'd be okay with it being an option in a sidebar instead of the main text with a specific "Talk to your GM to see if this is an option." call out. But to remove the option entirely from the book and saying "Oh, people can just house rule it." is, in my opinion, a bad choice. You present a less complete view. You enforce a "Oh, you're not playing right." sort of mindset that frankly I don't want to see in a game.

And remember, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I like the Force rating assist for modifying a crystal, however I have mixed opinions on the reduced difficulty if it's a "personal" lightsaber.

Although it addresses the milieu for Jedi, it raises the question of why don't other characters get the benefit when modifying their "personal" blaster? Why are Lightsabers so much easier to modify if you make it "personal"?

Because a lightsaber is different than a blaster. Your Kyber crystal can have an actual "spiritual" connection to you, whereas a blaster is just a personal piece of gear.

"The crystal is the heart of the blade. The heart is the crystal of the Jedi. The Jedi is the crystal of the Force. The Force is the blade of the heart. All are intertwined. The crystal, the blade, the Jedi. We are one." - Recited by Luminara Unduli when building her lightsaber in Clone Wars. So yes, there is a mystical connection between Jedi and their light sabers and their is a lot of material that states that Jedi learn to build their own lightsabers, even Luke had built his own for Episode V. So it does make sense that Jedi can more easily mod their lightsabers than other equipment.

How about a Signature Item sidebar that lets each character designate one piece of equipment that gets a reduced difficulty to mod?

This seems to have gotten lost in press, but seems like a good suggestion to me.

Force users learn to build their lightsabers and have a mystical attachment to them. It is an overarching part of being force users. The Technician class gets to have Solid Repairs, Jury Rigged or even Bypass Security, depending on their specialty. The Hired Gun gets abilities that make them really good at killing things. Every class has its own area where it excels. Force users can be a huge XP sink and need a little boost to help them out. Being able to manipulate their own lightsaber fits well with the cannon and does not mean that other classes need a boost to keep up.

Okay, I've only skimmed up to page 4 - so forgive me if I'm behind the times here, but I think I'm okay with this -2 thing. Why? Becoming a even moderately skilled jedi already takes a fuckton of points. It seems unfair to make them have to buy the Tinker Things talent tree and spend even more points on Mechanics just to modify their saber. Since they already have a bunch of checks and balances keeping them in balance, the ability to modify one (very personal) thing probably isn't going to send the game out of kilter.

That I know of, no one is arguing against it. It has been said, (by myself and a few others) that the -2 difficulty portion of the rules are not related to a spiritual relationship between the force user and the crystal, but rather familiarity with a custom/signature/scratch built item. Since that is narratively not a function of the force, but a function of familiarity, that option for a personal/signature/scratch built item shouldn't be limited to just force using characters, as this does not acknowledge the effort, devotion, and importance of many other tech or disciplined groups from the EU or other game lines (edge, rebellion).

and if that feature is too good to give everybody, leading to some sort of game breaking situation, then it's probably too good to give every character in the core FaD game. reasons being said game breaking.

I'm not against there being a narrative explanation for crafting the unique weapon of a Jedi. I think my screen name shows that I have a fondness for the ancient order. However, for game design reasons, I would rather have these particular benefits be something that is acquired, or earned, instead of just given out.

If anything, the difficulty of crafting a Lightsaber should be more difficult , not easier. There are no Jedi around to teach these things... however, the players may stumble upon a holocron, or an old master's notes, or something. Something from narrative that grants these benefits.

Also, for what makes the Jedi and their Lightsaber unique to me and mine, is not the same for everyone -- if we leave the "narrative mystical bond" a Jedi has with their weapon in the narrative and allow individual groups come up with how that bond is formed, and what "journeys" a particular character has to go through, I think down the road, more people will have better experiences with the narratives that do unfold for them.

It is acquired/earned when they build their own lightsaber. It is acquired by doing the quest to get the crystal and spending the credits to get the rest of the parts.

It is acquired/earned when they build their own lightsaber. It is acquired by doing the quest to get the crystal and spending the credits to get the rest of the parts.

If that works for you.

well it is a rare hard to locate 9000 credit item and few hundred credits. I see no reason why someone could not go through the process of buying all the parts for making whever weapon they want and building it from the ground up and getting the same benefit.

well it is a rare hard to locate 9000 credit item and few hundred credits. I see no reason why someone could not go through the process of buying all the parts for making whever weapon they want and building it from the ground up and getting the same benefit.

Especially considering the personal attachment of a Mando to his/her armor.

That I know of, no one is arguing against it. It has been said, (by myself and a few others) that the -2 difficulty portion of the rules are not related to a spiritual relationship between the force user and the crystal, but rather familiarity with a custom/signature/scratch built item. Since that is narratively not a function of the force, but a function of familiarity, that option for a personal/signature/scratch built item shouldn't be limited to just force using characters, as this does not acknowledge the effort, devotion, and importance of many other tech or disciplined groups from the EU or other game lines (edge, rebellion).

and if that feature is too good to give everybody, leading to some sort of game breaking situation, then it's probably too good to give every character in the core FaD game. reasons being said game breaking.

Okay, at first glance, I think I'd be okay with that too. It'd have to be something that someone invested a lot of sweat equity into - someone lovingly restoring a vintage '57 chevy from the scrapyard, restoring and overhauling and retooling and rebuilding every piece probably would have some kind of benefit to maintaining that car. I might go with Joe Six-pack and his Christine at -1 and the Jedi at -2, but because the Jedi does have a paranormal connection to the item, that he has a leg up over the mortals.

and the Jedi at -2, but because the Jedi does have a paranormal connection to the item, that he has a leg up over the mortals.

That paranormal connection is already in place by allowing Force dice to be rolled along with the Mechanics check. Granting the force user another bonus on top of that seems unnecessary to me.

They do? That's what I get for skimming at work instead of giving it a proper read. Okay, recanting my position - no paranormal attachment then - everyone gets a -2 if they've put tons and tons of sweat equity into That One Item.

well it is a rare hard to locate 9000 credit item and few hundred credits. I see no reason why someone could not go through the process of buying all the parts for making whever weapon they want and building it from the ground up and getting the same benefit.

Especially considering the personal attachment of a Mando to his/her armor.

...or a smuggler to her starship.

Ok, but what kind of limit should be imposed on "skilled assistance"? I think a boost die would still apply, but the point is that it is your personal item. Maybe if it applied to a starship and several characters took that as their personal then they could have the boon (like Han and Chewbacca with the Falcon) but I wouldn't let it work if a player tried to pull a -2 for personal + the droid slicer's Intellect + the PCs mechanics. The point is that it is personal, so in such a situation it might be best to have it be you alone making the check (or perhaps if multiple people selected it as personal if it applied to a ship). Example.

Luke is on Tatooine. He is going over the schematic, having Artoo help him make the mechanics check on his new, personal, green lightsaber. Luke's player looks at the dice. With Artoo's help he would have 4 Proficiency Dice and he would be adding a boost die, but the difficulty would be 3 Difficulty Dice and 2 Challenge Dice. Luke really wants to avoid any Despairs, so he opts out of using Artoo and drops the roll down to 3 Proficiency, 3 Force Dice, and 5 Difficulty Dice. He makes the check, 4 Failure, 3 Success, 2 Threat, 3 Advantage, 2 Black Pips, 2 White Pips and the green blade thrums to life!

Again, I am not dogmatically stating that you must start somewhere in between dark and light. If you want your players to start as a dark side demoniac or light side angelic then do so and have fun with that. House rule it and be on your way. However, as Sam Stewart stated recently on an episode of the podcast I never listen to, it is assumed that the characters would start out on the light side. I have read no convincing reason to start otherwise as written in an official set of core rules devoted to Star Wars role-playing. Deviate as it please one, however, it is my opinion that such should be that, a deviation of one's own conjuration. Oy.

Why should it have to be a house rule? In D&D, it's assumed players will be good. But the option for evil is there. It's not a house rule. It's presented as an option. Does it get as much attention? No.

I don't see an issue with presenting the dark side as an option, while still focusing on the light. It doesn't make light side games any worse by being an option. The GM is still fully within rights to forbid it as an option, and heck, I'd be okay with it being an option in a sidebar instead of the main text with a specific "Talk to your GM to see if this is an option." call out. But to remove the option entirely from the book and saying "Oh, people can just house rule it." is, in my opinion, a bad choice. You present a less complete view. You enforce a "Oh, you're not playing right." sort of mindset that frankly I don't want to see in a game.

And remember, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

My response or Fun with emoticons!

1. This isn't D&D.

2. Suggest to remove an option that was never in the original text and this is problematic for some? Curious. Still, your 'sidebar' suggestion makes sense. I might buy that.

3. Only Sith deal in absolutes? Is that an absolute statement? Hey, Jagermeister! There just might be a logical fallacy in this one for you to note to the general public. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Again, I am not dogmatically stating that you must start somewhere in between dark and light. If you want your players to start as a dark side demoniac or light side angelic then do so and have fun with that. House rule it and be on your way. However, as Sam Stewart stated recently on an episode of the podcast I never listen to, it is assumed that the characters would start out on the light side. I have read no convincing reason to start otherwise as written in an official set of core rules devoted to Star Wars role-playing. Deviate as it please one, however, it is my opinion that such should be that, a deviation of one's own conjuration. Oy.

Why should it have to be a house rule? In D&D, it's assumed players will be good. But the option for evil is there. It's not a house rule. It's presented as an option. Does it get as much attention? No.

I don't see an issue with presenting the dark side as an option, while still focusing on the light. It doesn't make light side games any worse by being an option. The GM is still fully within rights to forbid it as an option, and heck, I'd be okay with it being an option in a sidebar instead of the main text with a specific "Talk to your GM to see if this is an option." call out. But to remove the option entirely from the book and saying "Oh, people can just house rule it." is, in my opinion, a bad choice. You present a less complete view. You enforce a "Oh, you're not playing right." sort of mindset that frankly I don't want to see in a game.

And remember, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

My response or Fun with emoticons!

1. This isn't D&D.

2. Suggest to remove an option that was never in the original text and this is problematic for some? Curious. Still, your 'sidebar' suggestion makes sense. I might buy that.

3. Only Sith deal in absolutes? Is that an absolute statement? Hey, Jagermeister! There just might be a logical fallacy in this one for you to note to the general public. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

You might want to read the beta updates. Because it was put in and should be there.

Again, I am not dogmatically stating that you must start somewhere in between dark and light. If you want your players to start as a dark side demoniac or light side angelic then do so and have fun with that. House rule it and be on your way. However, as Sam Stewart stated recently on an episode of the podcast I never listen to, it is assumed that the characters would start out on the light side. I have read no convincing reason to start otherwise as written in an official set of core rules devoted to Star Wars role-playing. Deviate as it please one, however, it is my opinion that such should be that, a deviation of one's own conjuration. Oy.

Why should it have to be a house rule? In D&D, it's assumed players will be good. But the option for evil is there. It's not a house rule. It's presented as an option. Does it get as much attention? No.

I don't see an issue with presenting the dark side as an option, while still focusing on the light. It doesn't make light side games any worse by being an option. The GM is still fully within rights to forbid it as an option, and heck, I'd be okay with it being an option in a sidebar instead of the main text with a specific "Talk to your GM to see if this is an option." call out. But to remove the option entirely from the book and saying "Oh, people can just house rule it." is, in my opinion, a bad choice. You present a less complete view. You enforce a "Oh, you're not playing right." sort of mindset that frankly I don't want to see in a game.

And remember, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

My response or Fun with emoticons!

1. This isn't D&D.

2. Suggest to remove an option that was never in the original text and this is problematic for some? Curious. Still, your 'sidebar' suggestion makes sense. I might buy that.

3. Only Sith deal in absolutes? Is that an absolute statement? Hey, Jagermeister! There just might be a logical fallacy in this one for you to note to the general public. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Oh believe me I understand this isn't D&D. But that was an example. So snarky emoticons aren't needed.

The original text has also needed five revisions so far! Seems that there were some problems. I would consider the exclusion of options to be a problem, as well. There's no reason not to include this very simple option in the text. It doesn't force a character to be dark side, it doesn't force them to be light. But your method would force them to be neutral. I don't see the benefit in this. In fact, that looks like a flaw, to me and others.

You might want to read the beta updates. Because it was put in and should be there.

I agree though, I like the Morality update. Being "at the cusp" just didn't make much sense. IMO, that's want 50 Morality is for; a character with 50 morality can be RP'd on a journey to the Light or Dark, or simply in a struggle to maintain some sense of "grayness."

Again, I am not dogmatically stating that you must start somewhere in between dark and light. If you want your players to start as a dark side demoniac or light side angelic then do so and have fun with that. House rule it and be on your way. However, as Sam Stewart stated recently on an episode of the podcast I never listen to, it is assumed that the characters would start out on the light side. I have read no convincing reason to start otherwise as written in an official set of core rules devoted to Star Wars role-playing. Deviate as it please one, however, it is my opinion that such should be that, a deviation of one's own conjuration. Oy.

Why should it have to be a house rule? In D&D, it's assumed players will be good. But the option for evil is there. It's not a house rule. It's presented as an option. Does it get as much attention? No.

I don't see an issue with presenting the dark side as an option, while still focusing on the light. It doesn't make light side games any worse by being an option. The GM is still fully within rights to forbid it as an option, and heck, I'd be okay with it being an option in a sidebar instead of the main text with a specific "Talk to your GM to see if this is an option." call out. But to remove the option entirely from the book and saying "Oh, people can just house rule it." is, in my opinion, a bad choice. You present a less complete view. You enforce a "Oh, you're not playing right." sort of mindset that frankly I don't want to see in a game.

And remember, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

My response or Fun with emoticons!

1. This isn't D&D.

2. Suggest to remove an option that was never in the original text and this is problematic for some? Curious. Still, your 'sidebar' suggestion makes sense. I might buy that.

3. Only Sith deal in absolutes? Is that an absolute statement? Hey, Jagermeister! There just might be a logical fallacy in this one for you to note to the general public. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Oh believe me I understand this isn't D&D. But that was an example. So snarky emoticons aren't needed.

The original text has also needed five revisions so far! Seems that there were some problems. I would consider the exclusion of options to be a problem, as well. There's no reason not to include this very simple option in the text. It doesn't force a character to be dark side, it doesn't force them to be light. But your method would force them to be neutral. I don't see the benefit in this. In fact, that looks like a flaw, to me and others.

Not needed? But I was having so much fun with them.

As I alluded to previously, I may be inclined to agree to the sidebar approach and to move forward with your (A)D&D reference, make it an optional rule like proficiencies. Wow. That dates me a bit.

You might want to read the beta updates. Because it was put in and should be there.

Pretty sure he did read the updates, because that is what is being discussed.

I agree though, I like the Morality update. Being "at the cusp" just didn't make much sense. IMO, that's want 50 Morality is for; a character with 50 morality can be RP'd on a journey to the Light or Dark, or simply in a struggle to maintain some sense of "grayness."

I believe I already addressed this with my concerns, amigo.

First off I have to say I like the new Morality option to start as a devotee as the Light or Dark Side. If you don't want it in your game you just say no, but it means players have more options for characters.

They can play characters like Jules at the end of Pulp Fiction. He's a cold blooded killer that just realized the world didn't work how he thought it did, and is now ready to walk a new path. Likewise you can have a more tragic figure of a genuinely good person who has been pushed too far and is now on a quest for revenge, like Clint Eastwoods character at the very beginning of The Outlaw Josey Wales. The idea that the campaign is the beginning of a turning point in the characters life is a strongly narrative one, which is fine with me.

As for the new Lightsabre rules, my feelings are based on experiences in the past. Back in the day when we were playing the West End Games version I played a Jedi. Things were pretty hard core since if you didn't have a teacher, and being the rebellion era there weren't any, all force skills cost double experience. Ok fine, that's just how it is, But the problem came up when trying to build a lightsabre. I couldn't. Just being a Jedi sucked up so much experience that idea of taking any Technical skills was pretty much out of the question. Yet it was cannon even then that Jedi built their own Lightsabres, so I was caught in an impossible position. Well not quite impossible. I then spent a very long time slogging away at trying to learn how to build the stupid things. This was not fun.

As time has gone on, Jedi building lightsabres has become even more cannon. They're really good weapons. There isn't any reason for other people not to use them except for their rarity. And if anyone could build them they wouldn't be rare. So it seems pretty clear that building a Lightsabre has something to do with the Force. Only a force user can make them. Otherwise General Grievous wouldn't be picking them up as trophies. He's just grab the ones being mass produced in the droid factories.

So Jedi characters have to be able to build their own lightsabres, and they have to do so even if they don't have many techincal skills, because the odds are that unless you make an Artisan you won't have the required abilities.

Now some poeple have felt that there needs to be a bit more balance. To be honest my feeling is that this is a roleplaying game and there's going to be some imbalance as part of it. If you want to have a force user in with your Edge of Empire campaign just use the one from that book. If fits right in with that kind of group.

If you're going to be doing the full on Morality Jedi with all their special trees then do that campaign so everybody is on the same level. And if you try to shove that into one of the other campaigns don't come crying to me about game balance. It just isn't going to work. To me it's like the people who went complaining that the Space Marines in Death Watch weren't balanced with the other two games, to which our groups attitude was "No duh". They're Space Marines. They're the big guns with access to abilities and equipment that other people just don't. Trying to drag them down to a lower level just makes them feel wrong, and it's not a big deal because they don't have to be part of your game.

So I really don't care if this new rule makes Jedi "better" as long as it makes them work. I'm just fine with it since it meets the cannon and feels Star Wars. If people really want a change then the ones I found least terrible were to either make it for the tuning of the crystal only, or to make Lightsabres better at the base and so not require as much tunning up.