When the inquisitor and kanan fight it seems to me that he is not attacking but, just defending to get an idea about kanan's fighting style. Is there a way to forgo your attack and upgrade the attackers roll? when I watch that fight it doesn't feel like the Inquisitor is trying to attack feels like he is just defending so can you give up your attack to upgrade the opponent's attacks or how would you rule this in your game? I really like the idea of not attacking. I would like to use this for a character I want to play who is not offensive in nature.

Any thoughts or ideas?

posted from my phone sorry about the bad sentences.

Well, it's a narrative system with Advatages and Triumphs that you can spend as you wish. So if a PC is so skilled and wants to use that skill defensively there's not requirement that you use them for Criticals and such they can instead spend those Adv. and Tri. on adding Setbacks and such to their opponent. Volia, fighting defensively. No need for any House Rules.

Edit: Also keep in mind that only Criticals are attacks that need to be actual injuries against an opponent, hits that only do "wounds" can be grazes, bruses, close shaves that take wind out of you, whatever, that then all add up to what takes a PC down. This even more true with Minions.

In the scene you mention the Inquisitor very well could have been doing "wounds" wearing Kanan down but holding back on Criticals, instead using his Advantage to keep him off balance and a Triumph to disarm him.

In the case of Rebels, you can spend an advantage to notice something important about the battle. I would say an advantage to notice which form an opponent is using certainly counts.

Instead of an action and a manuever, you can take 2 maneuvers (Exchange an Action for a Maneuver, p. 203). To emulate the narrative above you could perform the following two manuevers:

1. Guarded Stance: "..adds [1 setback] to any checks to any combat checks he makes until the end of his next turn...also gains melee defense 1* until the end of his next turn." (p. 201)

2. Assist: "allows an engaged ally to add [1 boost] to his next check." (p. 201)

*Note that the defense granted here is not cumlative with cover or defense from armor. "Multiple sources of defense do not stack." (p. 207)

You can give up your action for a maneuver. That maneuver can be used to activate Defensive Stance or any number of defense-granting talents. He could have used an action to commit a Force die to the Sense power defense upgrade. He could have used Defensive Circle from Soresu Defender. Or he could have made some other skill check (Perception, Warfare, etc) to get a sense of Kanan's abilities.

Another thing to consider if you're going to use that fight as an example is that the Inquisitor very likely also began the battle by Intimidating Kanan, and continued doing so during the actual melee, in fact there is no reason believe that he rolled any actual Lightsabler Attacks at all they could have been Opposed Coercion rolls. The lightsaber is still swinging but he's not intending to do any damage so there's no need to use his Lightsaber skill and instead it's Kanan's Attack rolls that are driving what lightsaber stuff we see. Even more those Coercion "Attacks" would be against both Kanan and Erza and the Inquisitor can use the Advantages and/or Triumph(s) they generate against either of them. In the scene his primary attack is talking to both of them focusing on grinding down Kenan mentally before going in for the kill while showing Erza the power he possesses and sowing the seeds of doubt that may bring him to the Dark Side.

A PC could use the same tactic as well and engage with their Lightsaber but use a different skill for different results. They wouldn't be able to do damage, but they could gain the benefits of the skill they are using and use the generated Advantages and/or Triumphs to add Setback(s) and even Disarm. The point is that this kind of combat doesn't just have to be weapon attack rolls, it can still be described as "while I'm defending against Kanan's feeble Lightsaber attacks I attempt to Coerce him and the boy into giving up". As for the Disarm I mentioned earlier, all you need is a Triumph or three (I think it's three) Advantages to successfully do it, there is no mechanical requirement that you have to be making a melee roll only that you be making a roll during Combat. Of course you'd need to justify it in some cases, it would be hard to say have the medic, while patching someone up, spend the Advantages generated on his Medical roll to have an NPC get Disarmed, but in the above case it should be allowed.

Another thing to consider if you're going to use that fight as an example is that the Inquisitor very likely also began the battle by Intimidating Kanan, and continued doing so during the actual melee, in fact there is no reason believe that he rolled any actual Lightsabler Attacks at all they could have been Opposed Coercion rolls. The lightsaber is still swinging but he's not intending to do any damage so there's no need to use his Lightsaber skill and instead it's Kanan's Attack rolls that are driving what lightsaber stuff we see. Even more those Coercion "Attacks" would be against both Kanan and Erza and the Inquisitor can use the Advantages and/or Triumph(s) they generate against either of them. In the scene his primary attack is talking to both of them focusing on grinding down Kenan mentally before going in for the kill while showing Erza the power he possesses and sowing the seeds of doubt that may bring him to the Dark Side.

A PC could use the same tactic as well and engage with their Lightsaber but use a different skill for different results. They wouldn't be able to do damage, but they could gain the benefits of the skill they are using and use the generated Advantages and/or Triumphs to add Setback(s) and even Disarm. The point is that this kind of combat doesn't just have to be weapon attack rolls, it can still be described as "while I'm defending against Kanan's feeble Lightsaber attacks I attempt to Coerce him and the boy into giving up". As for the Disarm I mentioned earlier, all you need is a Triumph or three (I think it's three) Advantages to successfully do it, there is no mechanical requirement that you have to be making a melee roll only that you be making a roll during Combat. Of course you'd need to justify it in some cases, it would be hard to say have the medic, while patching someone up, spend the Advantages generated on his Medical roll to have an NPC get Disarmed, but in the above case it should be allowed.

I think the devs would simile to you.

Pretty much this. You can use your "social skills" as "social combat skill" if you wish to do strain damage (destroying the opponent resolve) and inflict setbacks with the advantages.

I think the devs would simile to you.

Pretty much this. You can use your "social skills" as "social combat skill" if you wish to do strain damage (destroying the opponent resolve) and inflict setbacks with the advantages.

Thanks

I would imagine that an Inquisitor would be a fairly major foe that would be able to both fight insanely well and be a very smooth talker able to convince wayward Force Users to embrace the Dark Side and join the Empire. I haven't figured out yet how to introduce one but when the F&D CRB comes out I'll have to come up with something good... and bad, very, very bad.

Really like the suggestion. Thanks a lot to everyone for posting ideas.