So a somewhat Iconic action in saber combat is the saber lock, where 2 saber users come to blows and test reflexes and might against one another as their sabers clash. In Saga Editon it even had an optional ruleset to accommodate this type of action, an opposed initiative check for an unarmed strike when a combatants UtF check to block matched the attack roll exactly.

Now, the FaD dice pool is inherently more narrative and I don't think one needs such an mechanic(and if there is I didn't see it) so I would ask what kind of resulting pool would you think would result in this kind of stalemate? Not that I wanna recreate the free attack of Saga's interpretation, but it doesn't see like there is any interpretation that's exactly like it either, aside from flavoring a successful attack as winning such a display. I think it'd be some sorta opposed lightsaber check if I was trying to capture the feel of it all.

So what result of the dice pool would you think would result in a saber lock?

Before your concerns are address, I would like to know, what are you wanting to get out of a saber lock mechanic?

To me, the point of the narrative dice are to tell a story. So you can use advantage/threat or despair/triumph to narrate what happens during a saber lock.

Before your concerns are address, I would like to know, what are you wanting to get out of a saber lock mechanic?

To me, the point of the narrative dice are to tell a story. So you can use advantage/threat or despair/triumph to narrate what happens during a saber lock.

Maybe just figure out an appropriate number of threat rolled. you end up in a saber lock then make an opposed lightsaber check. I would say 2 threat.

Hmm, how about Saber-lock: If opponent generates 3 threat on a lightsaber combat check that does no damage (after soak) player may make a saber-lock incidental out-of-turn. Player and opponent may only make Force power actions and no maneuvers until end of player's next turn.

Saber-lock (Improved) during player's next turn after taking the saber-lock incidental out-of-turn, may make an opposed Brawn vs. Brawn check, if successful player may knockdown opponent. May spend 2 advantage to instead cause base lightsaber damage to opponent (modified by applicable talents and qualities), ignoring defense.

Maybe it would work better tied in to the Parry talent?

I guess the easiest way is that talking is an out of turn incidental. So players or GMs that want a saberlock could easily take a second to "interrupt" the turn of combat and talking about how a saberlock is initiated and they have a little good chat.

I like the concept of it as an out of turn incidental, resulting from a certain amount of threat/advantage, but it does feel like doing regular saber damage is a bit overpowered(maybe 1 plus successes?). Otherwise though, I am thinking I will run it similarly to what we've brainstormed over here.

I am even thinking I don't want this as a talent, though it would be cool if it became one. More like just a niche little mechanical Narrative option that could result from the dice pool during combat between 2 saber users.

i think strain damage would better fit how saber locks have been seen in the movies

I agree with the OP, and started a thread about it a while ago here:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/114419-is-there-saber-lock/

Yes, this can be done using Advantages/Threats, etc with the dice as they are. However, this is one of those things that some people may not know about, and IMHO would be one of those things that if a player wanted to do it, depending on what they wanted to do I'd have to "get back to them" rather than let it play out in the moment.

So it would be nice to at least have a called out sidebar with suggestions on how to handle it. Just MHO, but I think it's an opportunity to shift the direction and pace of combat, and not having some mechanic for it is a missed opportunity.

I agree with the OP, and started a thread about it a while ago here:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/114419-is-there-saber-lock/

I definitely agree though, a sidebar would be nice.

heres the thing. I am a sword fighter and I have gotten into "saber lock" What it really is is wrestling. you move in and use your sword to press in on the other person trying to force them off balance or push their sword out of position.. It is not something about lightsabers. It is a technique you use to try and unbalance or disrupt your opponents defenses.

Both Japanese and european swordsman would do it.

As I said in the initial thread, this is something that can already be handled via the Advantage/Threat system without adding another set of rules. All the player and GM need to do is invoke a bit of creativity in how those Advantage/Threat are spent.

2 Advantage to add a boost to your next attack - you and your foe lock sabers briefly, and while he manages to wrestle his blade free, doing so has put him off-balance and open to a follow-up strike on your part.

2 Threat to add a setback die to your next attack - you and your foe lock sabers briefly, but in the act of breaking the lock your foe has put you off-balance and thus made it more difficult for your next strike to find its mark.

3 Advantage to increase your melee defense for one turn - a quick exchange of blows ends with you and your opponent's sabers locked together, both struggling for the superior position for several precious seconds before breaking apart. But those few seconds have allowed you to adapt your defenses to ward off any incoming attacks.

2 Threat to add a setback die to opponent's next roll - as you and your adversary trade blows, your sabers lock for several seconds before you manage to wrest them apart to break the lock. But in doing so, you've left a gap in your defenses and your foe is ready to exploit it. (Same description could be used for spending 1 Threat to counter the effects of the guarded stance maneuver)

3 Threat to knock the attacker prone - As you and your opponent's sabers lock, you each struggle for superior positioning. However, your foe exerts an unexpected burst of strength that causes you to lose your footing and stumble backwards before winding up sprawled on the ground at your foe's mercy.

No special rules needed, just adding some flavor text to the existing rules. All of which took less than 5 minutes to come up and type.

No special rules needed, just adding some flavor text to the existing rules. All of which took less than 5 minutes to come up and type.

Except...all your examples only resolve a lightsaber attack, and only describe lightsaber coolery. You're entirely missing the point of the OP (and my original thread) because that's not what we're after.

Your examples do not account for two people being in a saber-lock and one using, say, a Force Move attack, or attempting, say, a Scathing Tirade. The point is the saber-lock represents a break in the to-and-fro of lightsaber combat, perhaps initiated out of desperation to *stop* the battle and use something else, or to simply an attempt to dominate the opponent socially.

No special rules needed, just adding some flavor text to the existing rules. All of which took less than 5 minutes to come up and type.

Except...all your examples only resolve a lightsaber attack, and only describe lightsaber coolery. You're entirely missing the point of the OP (and my original thread) because that's not what we're after.

Your examples do not account for two people being in a saber-lock and one using, say, a Force Move attack, or attempting, say, a Scathing Tirade. The point is the saber-lock represents a break in the to-and-fro of lightsaber combat, perhaps initiated out of desperation to *stop* the battle and use something else, or to simply an attempt to dominate the opponent socially.

Saberlock is wrestling. It is not a break in the to and fro. Trust me I sword fight. It requires more concentration not less. You put some distance between you and your opponent if you want a break.

Saberlock is wrestling. It is not a break in the to and fro. Trust me I sword fight. It requires more concentration not less. You put some distance between you and your opponent if you want a break.

Maybe in "real life". But cinematically it's an opportunity to do other things. TCW is filled with saber-locks, and almost none of them are about wrestling.

So you think. They were about wrestling trust me. I can tell.

So you think. They were about wrestling trust me. I can tell.

I guess...if your definition of "wrestling" includes Force Moves and Scathing Tirades...

yes it does. As saying things to disrupt ones focus so you can get a move in is a common sword wrestling technique. As would be using the force. It is all about how you spend those advantages and threat.

In real life you never 'wrestle' with an opponent's blade....if you do you are missing all opportunities to disengage and very likely will throw yourself off-balance...in European style fencing you'd use beat-attacks or quick circular movements to force the opponent's point off line such as a coupe...or mulinello...you never stop moving unless you are performing a counter to a full attack. Anything else would be infighting that would require actual wrestling and not pushing blades against each other.

Dooku and Obiwan had a more realistic approach in EP2 on Dooku's part, Obiwan was just being stupid,...Anakin vs Dooku in EP3, except for the literal disarming, is how real infighting would work ...That being said, the saber-lock is a great narrative device and for this game can allow for other actions as stated previously...I like my version and will try to use it at first opportunity if one of my players picks up a lightsaber wielding character.

Stop thinking fencing. start thinking kendo or broadsword. Fencing is the wrong thought process. fencers only use the tip. Lightsabers are more like katana and you do wrestle.

No special rules needed, just adding some flavor text to the existing rules. All of which took less than 5 minutes to come up and type.

Except...all your examples only resolve a lightsaber attack, and only describe lightsaber coolery. You're entirely missing the point of the OP (and my original thread) because that's not what we're after.

Your examples do not account for two people being in a saber-lock and one using, say, a Force Move attack, or attempting, say, a Scathing Tirade. The point is the saber-lock represents a break in the to-and-fro of lightsaber combat, perhaps initiated out of desperation to *stop* the battle and use something else, or to simply an attempt to dominate the opponent socially.

So what you ultimately want is free Actions as a result of a "saber lock"? Getting both the chance to deal damage and get a free Action... well if that's your point, then it's a pretty **** cheesy one, and should NOT happen "just because."

Again, it's ultimately a narrative system. So if you as the GM want your BBEG to use Scathing Tirade as a breaking speech over crossed blades (lightsaber or otherwise), then simply narrate the action as the BBEG makes an attack (even though there's no attack roll or actual attack taking place), blades cross as the PC target intercepts the blow, then the BBEG leans in and says their bit of villainous dialogue. Mechanically, this would be the BBEG using their Action to make the Coercion check to use Scathing Tirade, and the GM being creative with the narrative of how the effects of Scathing Tirade play out. End result is a cool scene that plays out within the existing rule structure.

Again, a little creativity in describing the actions goes a long way without the need for half-assed attempts to over-complicate how combat works. Fortunes know there's already enough people kavitching about how Jedi are "special little snowflakes" without adding even more special combat rules to make them even more special.

So what you ultimately want is free Actions as a result of a "saber lock"? Getting both the chance to deal damage and get a free Action... well if that's your point, then it's a pretty **** cheesy one, and should NOT happen "just because."

Free Action? Of course not, that would indeed be cheesy. And I'm certainly not after more "special snowflake" rules, but I would like something that captures that iconic activity.

(EDIT: most of my snippy response removed. I'm tired of arguing with you DM, because despite what you might think I do respect your opinion, but it would help if you spent a little time comprehending the argument rather than reacting to what you imagine.)

Really I'd be content even with no mechanic, a short sidebar calling it out would do.

Well, I'm glad you agree on the cheese factor of getting a free Action along with the lightsaber check. Frankly your posts on this seem pretty contradictory. In one breath you say "we don't need any new rules for this," and yet in other posts you take offense when I or others confirm exactly that point, that the existing rules allow for various effects of a "saber-lock" quite well without adding free Brawl attacks; just because Saga Edition did something a certain way doesn't mean FFG has to follow suit. And there's already a talent to get a free use of Move on a failed Lightsaber attack roll, so that could be narratively described as the attacker briefly locking blades after their opponent successfully countered the attack (Action was spent on a Lightsaber attack roll, which failed but generated 3 Advantage; a "miss" in melee combat doesn't always have to mean the attack literally missed) with the attacker resorting to a Force thrust (spending their Advantage and taking a Maneuver to use Force Assault) while their lightsabers are briefly locked.

As my earlier post indicated, the rules structure is already in place to enable the player and GM to determine what effects a saber-lock might have in the form of the pre-existing Advantage/Threat mechanics. The list of examples I gave were simply that: examples . It was in no way meant to be any sort of definitive list, but simply a demonstration of how a little creativity on the part of GM and player in narrating the effect of Advantage and Threat would replicate the "effect" of a saber-lock without any additional mechanics needing to be added.

Stop thinking fencing. start thinking kendo or broadsword. Fencing is the wrong thought process. fencers only use the tip. Lightsabers are more like katana and you do wrestle.

What? No, you don't have prolonged blade contact in either of those especially with a Katana as their edges are brittle. I think you're confusing manga/Anime with actual practices. Regardless, lightsaber fighting doesn't need to resemble real life at all, only what fits the narrative.

No I actually am not. You do not hit a katana edge to edge. You do however do things like use the side of your katana to force their katana against their body and use a judo throw on them or offer resistance and suddenly relax like water putting them off balance.