I'm concerned about Supreme Parry being a bit overpowered with the end result that characters will not attack with lightsabers in duels with other Force users.

As it is LS are a relatively weak for attack checks and the prospect of Improved Parry makes it a bit foolish to attack.

Supreme Parry lowers the strain cost when you do not make a combat check, but you can make a Force Power check.

There are a lot of damaging Force powers that do not require a combat check.

I think this means we won't get duels so much as a lot of powers. And that's a bit counter. It's usually a mix of both.

As it is, just max defense, defensive stance twice, parry, improved parry (which I do not think should be an autohit), and use your actions for Force Powers. Then you still qualify for Supreme Parry.

Especially since a Force Rating 5, 6, 7... character does not have any extra defense against opposed Force Power checks.

I recommend adding that you cannot use Supreme Parry if you made a combat check or Force Power Check on the previous turn.

...if you have a player with a Force Rating of 5-7; Supreme Parry is not your biggest problem.

That's not a duelist anyway; that's a Force Wizard. Best counter to a Force Wizard is another Force Wizard. Or a dude with a giant cannon. Can't Supreme Parry if all the attacks are Ranged attacks.

But who are you playing with that gets a Force Rating of even 4? My PCs had to slog through 500 xp just to get that far, and that one one PC who was focusing on Force Powers (that was with my own custom Jedi Career, but the cost to get Force Rating across two-four specializations wasn't that much different that F&D's specs).

The Force Rating is an extreme example admittedly. Not sure I presented it otherwise. But in that extreme case, if you had to, would you use powers or close for the LS? Probable the former. That's even the case on the lower end of the spectrum (lower Force Rating adversaries), I feel and that's my point.

I think my point about favoring powers is valid.

I want to keep this topic about Supreme Parry and its impact on player's tactical decisions. That it makes player go to Force Powers over the LS.

What do you think about adding Force Power checks disqualifying Supreme Parry?

I don't feel it's needed.

Supreme Parry is a talent that takes 75 XP to get in a tree that doesn't get another Force Rating Talent. Assuming you build some combo like Soresu Defender and cross-spec over to Seer or Sage, you can get a character with Supreme Parry and 3 ranks of Force Rating for...280 XP? And then you still have to buy into Move, Heal/Harm, Bind, or Protect Unleash.

• Move, you want to buy up Discipline, probably sinking another 25 XP into that (Rank 1 to 3). Going to need to sink 40xp into Move to make it worth it.
• Heal/Harm, you need Medicine; a non-career skill for every Spec I listed above. Call it 45 xp into that (to get from 0 to Rank 3 in a non-career skill). You would have a high Intellect because of Soresu Defender's Soresu Technique, so this is likely the best damage dealer for this build. However he's automatically gaining 1 Conflict every time he does that. Needs to sink 65 xp into it to make it worth it.
• Protect/Unleash, buying up Discipline as above. You need to have a good Willpower, or this isn't worth it. Needs to sink 50xp into the power and upgrades to make it "good"
• Bind: you need to use Dark Side points (and earn Conflict) to have it even deal damage. 40-55 xp to get it "good".

So 75 in Soresu Defender + 200 into Sage or Seer + 25 to 30 xp into skills + 40 to 65 xp into a Force power. So we're talking 400+xp to get a character to a point where what you bring up is even a real possible. And with a Force Rating of 3 and him being a real 1 trick pony (Parry/Reflect all day long and Force power on his turn) isn't really a huge, BBEG-crushing problem.

It's a one-trick pony. Got a PC who wants to do this? SHOOT HIM . He'll have to diverge from this focused path and drop another 65xp to get to Improved Reflect with 2 ranks of Reflect from Soresu Defender, and he won't be able to reduce that Strain cost to 1 like he can with Parry.

That's the mechanical. Then there's the fluff; not everyone wants to play the same way you do. Just because you want this character to get into a Lightsaber fight doesn't mean the player does. If you take this focused build, you're doing it because you want to be a Force Wizard type with high defensive options so he doesn't get rolled by opposing melee characters. There's an entire class in Star Wars The Old Republic based on this (The Jedi Sage).

Some people fight with Lightsabers. Others use the Force. Those characters should not be required to play their character in a way that does not interest them. Just because you want them to have to get into a lightsaber duel doesn't mean they want to.

My concern is for players who want to go to the LS. In fact I'm saying just the opposite that the game system selects for the best course of action whether I'm a part of that or not.

I'm just looking at Adversary, Parry, Reflect, Armor, and Defense that a strong foe (say at FR 5) will have and if they have Improved and/or Supreme Parry there's no way a sane character within this setting would close and go to the saber if they have a few Force Powers. And if they don't they will probably start spending their XP on that.

Yet LS duels are what we see all the time in the movies. Not like that's not bread and butter there.

Adversary, Parry, Reflect, Armor, Defense, Defensive Stance, talents, etc. do not apply to a Force user's defense from Force powers whether they are Force Rating 1 or Force Rating 6, so have at it with powers. And the Force resistance rules/suggestion/sidebar say sometimes you can make it an opposed check and sometimes not, and sometimes it's Discipline and sometimes not (even for Force users!?)--a little messy and imprecise.

As far as XP we play the same campaign for 1-2 years. They get a lot of XP so that's not an issue. Or are you suggesting there's a cap at which the game does not work as well?

I don't feel it's needed.

Supreme Parry is a talent that takes 75 XP to get in a tree that doesn't get another Force Rating Talent.

It's a valid point that it's rare, but what does this supreme LS master get for all that XP in his LS abilities? Incentive to use powers and not take combat checks. But he wants to use that saber. Why would he if he has a FR 2-3 and can do unblockable strain with Influence and not risk an auto hit?

It's a one-trick pony.

I think we're making the same point. Why spend all that XP on LS instead of powers and Force rating? We seem to agree that XP on Force Rating is much more bang for the buck

To be clear I've suggested other changes to make defending against Force powers a little stronger for powerful Force users. This is just one of them. The idea is to keep the LS in the game where it is in the movies and to tone down Force Power spamming.

My concern is for players who want to go to the LS. In fact I'm saying just the opposite that the game system selects for the best course of action whether I'm a part of that or not.

I'm just looking at Adversary, Parry, Reflect, Armor, and Defense that a strong foe (say at FR 5) will have and if they have Improved and/or Supreme Parry there's no way a sane character within this setting would close and go to the saber if they have a few Force Powers. And if they don't they will probably start spending their XP on that.

Yet LS duels are what we see all the time in the movies. Not like that's not bread and butter there.

Adversary, Parry, Reflect, Armor, Defense, Defensive Stance, talents, etc. do not apply to a Force user's defense from Force powers whether they are Force Rating 1 or Force Rating 6, so have at it with powers. And the Force resistance rules/suggestion/sidebar say sometimes you can make it an opposed check and sometimes not, and sometimes it's Discipline and sometimes not (even for Force users!?)--a little messy and imprecise.

As far as XP we play the same campaign for 1-2 years. They get a lot of XP so that's not an issue. Or are you suggesting there's a cap at which the game does not work as well?

BBEGs already have something better than Supreme Parry; look at the section on making Inquisitors. You'll notice the whole "spend X strain to activate" is missing. By RAW, they don't even have to spend strain to activate Parry and Reflect.

Also, for BBEGs or any opponent with Adversary, if you're worried about what will happen when a player goes up against that NPC, don't give that NPC that Talent. If you're the player and the GM is continually throwing opponents at you that can't be countered in some way, then you need to have a talk with your GM about how un-fun such opponents are.

I'm also puzzled why you think Lightsabers aren't being used in the game. They're all over the place in my playtest game(s). No one is using the Force as a "better" alternative, just simply as "an" alternative. There is no "Force power spam" that I see at my table. The only players that use Force powers each round are the one or two players who specifically built a Force Wizard type. The other PCs are swinging away with their Lightsabers and enjoying it.

My experiences with the game just don't line up with what you're arguing here. Is this the way it's playing out in your playtest group? With players spamming Force powers and GMs that stack the deck against the players?

I have been given an opportunity to play and my idea is to create the parry/reflect master. Perhaps as a fencer I am draw into the whole parry, riposte, counter attack, part of the talents.

I think the other key element to the problem you are concerned about speaks to me, it isn't just that the GM will play a NPC that holds his actions to parry and reflect for minimal strain.

For this to be a problem I have to hold actions too.

I’m not sure this thread needs to be a question of GM style or quality any more than it’s already become. I think there are plenty of data points to frame the conversation.

Does having Supreme Parry incentivize using Force Powers over LS attacks?

Sure, if you have Force Powers.

Now it might only apply to high XP games and certain combat types. Those might be reason enough to say, meh, these aren’t the droids we’re looking for, move along.

But I’m looking at this in the context of some other issues I feel favor Force Powers and to a degree contrary to the source .

Now I’ll get two things out of the way right off.

1. Of course I realize some Force players will choose a LS. It’s Star Wars; I’d hope they would. What I’m saying is that the game should have them make that choice while it mimics the source, not in spite of the fact that it does not. In the movies sabers are used a lot to decide duels, even by powerful Force Users, presumably because the characters in that setting have decided that doing so is the best course. And either way I’m talking about specifically making combat checks with the LS. There are still many reasons to have a saber (as it should be) even if you never make that combat check.

2. My concern is the specific case where all at the table want to have a classic LS duel scene and the characters and adversaries represent classic Star Wars Force users decent with powers and with the LS.

Here’s a summary of some of my concerns regarding mechanical reasons to use a Force Power over a LS attack check:

1. LS attack check disqualifies Supreme Parry. Force Power use does not.

2. LS attack check risks an Improved Parry autohit. Force Power use does not.

3. LS attack check usually requires engaged. Many Force Powers can be used at range.

4. LS attack check can be parried. Force Power cannot.

5. Adversary applies to LS attack checks. It does not to a Force Power check except Move ranged attack.

6. Many defensive talents apply to LS combat checks. Maybe/probably not as many apply to Force Power checks (or apply equally when they do apply).

7. A lot of defensive equipment applies to LS combat checks. Probably not as much applies defense to Force Power checks.

8. Defender’s Force Rating does [edit: not] apply to the check of either. It can apply indirectly to defense against both, but roughly equally.

9. Skill check difficulty. This is a huge variable. Almost so much so that it makes the discussion difficult to have until it’s solidified more. Now the skill check difficulty for LS just gets harder the better the adversary is. The skill check difficulty for the Force Power check is unclear. Sometimes it is a factor and sometimes it is not. If the defender is a Force User you usually use Discipline, but not always (this rule is very unclear). It’s very possible that the choice the GM makes very much favors Force Power use.

10. In both cases the XP spent on the attack vector applies.

11. The Protect Force Power applies to both attacks. It’s a no-brainer if you have this and Supreme Parry to use it instead of attacking with the saber.

12. Defensive maneuvers apply to LS attack. They do not apply to Force Power attacks except the Move ranged attack.

Any one might be fine to overlook or debate. Heck, any one might alone be a good way to represent the source—LS should rarely be use at range for example. But combined I think there’s a conversation to have in the context of a beta. I’m most concerned about the effectiveness of a LS combat check hit and the ability to use and resist Force Powers being true to the source.

I think given the variable of XP these facts favor the LS for lower XP games with defensively weaker opponents but skew toward Force Powers as XP and opponents go up. Melee and ranged defensive effectiveness scales with talents, equipment, etc.. Force Power resistance scales relatively weaker compared to this as it’s based on either nothing or skills and characteristics applied arbitrarily.

All this applies even without going to the fact that many adversaries will never require the opposed roll for Force Checks. That’s not the case with LS Combat Checks.

Now I’m sure I’m not thinking of some factors that favor the LS combat check. Happy to hear them.

I’m sure some will might say, but your premise is wrong: in the source Force Powers are used more than the saber in a duel between Force Users. That would be fun to discuss too.

I’ve already made a lot of suggestions about my concerns in other posts. And to be very clear these suggestions address other concerns I have (which is to say there are other reasons behind them) but here are a few that apply here:

1. Parry (Improved)

Suggestion: When the character uses the Parry incidental on a Brawl, Melee, or Lightsaber combat check, the character may suffer one strain to automatically upgrade his next Lightsaber combat check before the end of his next turn against that attacker once.

Once a character activates this talent he may not do so again until after his next turn.

Reason:

-Chicken/egg syndrome. I’m not risking an autohit and neither is my adversary. Incentive is to go to Force Powers or other actions, I feel contrary to source.

-An autohit with no chance at a crit or parry (for PC) has a whittle effect not true to what sabers do.

2. Parry (Supreme)

Suggestion: Add Force Power Check as a disqualifier.

Reason:

-Current talent favors going to Force Powers.

3. When a Force User must make a combined check using a Force Power that is targeting another character, they must upgrade the difficulty once if the target has a higher Force Rating. Maybe even if equal.

-Makes the choice of going to powers a more difficult one in a duel, as in the source.

4. This one is tricky. Make the LS more powerful when it hits but less likely to hit. My suggestion is making Parry an all or nothing proposition and change improved parry from an autohit.

5. A limiting factor on number of uses of Force Powers. Perhaps you cannot reuse one that has been resisted in combat.

Combined I think these will create a situation where the Force User duels in the game will more organically mimic those we see in the source—more sabers clashing. And I think they still leave room for the Force wizard character style and battle.

I even have some concerns about these suggestions and that’s why I bring them up here for discussion.

BBEGs already have something better than Supreme Parry; look at the section on making Inquisitors. You'll notice the whole "spend X strain to activate" is missing. By RAW, they don't even have to spend strain to activate Parry and Reflect.

I'm aware of this. In fact I brought it up in another post asking if this is just a truncation and the intent is that the Talent still work as written in the Talents section or if Talents in stat blocks indeed work differently as worded for an Adversary. Personally I feel the former should be the case, but conventional wisdom in that post seemed to favor the latter.

I'm thinking this is more reason not to make a LS check, though, since you are not even reducing their strain, but I might be missing another point?

Also note if we go by what is written there Adversaries can use those talents whenever "struck" and not just from a combat check as is the case for the PCs. A little more reason for an Adversary to go to the saber.

I have been given an opportunity to play and my idea is to create the parry/reflect master. Perhaps as a fencer I am draw into the whole parry, riposte, counter attack, part of the talents.

I think the other key element to the problem you are concerned about speaks to me, it isn't just that the GM will play a NPC that holds his actions to parry and reflect for minimal strain.

For this to be a problem I have to hold actions too.

Are you saying to use Supreme Parry you have to not use a LS attack? This is the case.

If the Adversary is attacking you with a LS, I recommend you get Protect and use your action for that, buff strain, and use Improved/Supreme Parry as much as you can. Use a LS attack check only when the spending results table allow the dice to line up for you and the opponent's defenses apply less, after you've buffed with talents and powers, and flip a destiny point. Don't pull an "I'll take him NOW!" like Anakin.

If he's not attacking you with a LS, then it's not an issue becasue Parry will not apply anyway. But watch out for baiting.

You can get in a situation where neither side blinks first (or one side stops blinking if that makes any sense). You need a Force Power in your hip pocket.

Finally, note that some Adversaries can Parry your hits from Improved Parry if your GM rules the Talent exactly as written. You cannot do this. It sucks. But at least they can't Improved Parry your Improved Parry.

Personally, I wouldn't even let a player get away with this combo*, despite it working RAW. It's super munchkinny, and its pretty obvious that the intent of supreme talent is to give you a bonus when you're not on the offensive. Smacking people around with the force is very offensive, and there's no doubt in my mind that the devs would have included using force powers offensively alongside combat checks as a no-no to earn the strain reduction if there was a simple way to do it in the rules.

*standard considerations for their xp already spent and their feelings, of course. I'd probably adapt to it as long as they didn't abuse it if I hadn't seen the combo coming or they wanted to do it very badly.

Personally, I wouldn't even let a player get away with this combo*, despite it working RAW. It's super munchkinny, and its pretty obvious that the intent of supreme talent is to give you a bonus when you're not on the offensive. Smacking people around with the force is very offensive, and there's no doubt in my mind that the devs would have included using force powers offensively alongside combat checks as a no-no to earn the strain reduction if there was a simple way to do it in the rules.

*standard considerations for their xp already spent and their feelings, of course. I'd probably adapt to it as long as they didn't abuse it if I hadn't seen the combo coming or they wanted to do it very badly.

The problem is some adversaries can and will do this.

The suggested Inquisitor build with Parry or Reflect can be ruled (I think the jury is out) that they can use combat checks or Force Powers without regard to it's impact to the strain cost of Refelct and Parry, becasue they don't cost any. Pretty nasty.

So if you make it so that Force Power checks disqualify Supreme Parry then you are really only hurting the PC, even if you are limiting Force Power usage.

So you have to go a step further, like:

A LS combat check does not disqualify Supreme Parry but a Force Power check does. Makes sense. You can attack and parry but maybe the concentration from a Force Power precludes you from parrying a well.

or

Rule that Reflect and Parry work the same for PC and Adversary, which I think should be the case.

Either way I think Force Power Resistance is still a part of the problem for being a bit wishy washy and relatively weak. And reuse is too easy.

An adversary is whatever you make him. You don't need to use talent combos, just arbitrarily give him 5 ranks of lightsaber and he's going to kill people.

If you're worried about the power level of npc's, your problem isn't with the rules, its with the GM that threw the bad guy at you.

I'm not that worried about compensating for it but other players might.

So you are saying you think Force Power check should disqualify Supreme Parry even if that just impacts the PC? That was my original proposal but I got some feedback that seemed to imply that is rough on the PC and does not impact the adversary, but again that situation on Adversary talents is a bit unclear anyway.

An adversary is whatever you make him. You don't need to use talent combos, just arbitrarily give him 5 ranks of lightsaber and he's going to kill people.

If you're worried about the power level of npc's, your problem isn't with the rules, its with the GM that threw the bad guy at you.

This.

Looking over your "list", you're worried that every lightsaber fight is going to devolve into "Force Power Madness".

1. LS attack check disqualifies Supreme Parry. Force Power use does not.

2. LS attack check risks an Improved Parry autohit. Force Power use does not.

3. LS attack check usually requires engaged. Many Force Powers can be used at range.

4. LS attack check can be parried. Force Power cannot.

5. Adversary applies to LS attack checks. It does not to a Force Power check except Move ranged attack.

6. Many defensive talents apply to LS combat checks. Maybe/probably not as many apply to Force Power checks (or apply equally when they do apply).

7. A lot of defensive equipment applies to LS combat checks. Probably not as much applies defense to Force Power checks.

8. Defender’s Force Rating does [edit: not] apply to the check of either. It can apply indirectly to defense against both, but roughly equally.

9. Skill check difficulty. This is a huge variable. Almost so much so that it makes the discussion difficult to have until it’s solidified more. Now the skill check difficulty for LS just gets harder the better the adversary is. The skill check difficulty for the Force Power check is unclear. Sometimes it is a factor and sometimes it is not. If the defender is a Force User you usually use Discipline, but not always (this rule is very unclear). It’s very possible that the choice the GM makes very much favors Force Power use.

10. In both cases the XP spent on the attack vector applies.

11. The Protect Force Power applies to both attacks. It’s a no-brainer if you have this and Supreme Parry to use it instead of attacking with the saber.

12. Defensive maneuvers apply to LS attack. They do not apply to Force Power attacks except the Move ranged attack.

1. We've discussed this in this thread before.
2. Yes, yes it does. Just like a blaster attack with a Heavy Blaster Pistol could result in a "drained power pack" result, and if the PC doesn't plan ahead his main weapon that he probably sunk lots of XP into is now useless for the rest of the fight. If your group of PCs is going up against 1 or 2 adversaries, both with Improved Parry, then they should swarm him. Or use ranged attacks, LIKE the Force. Playing your opponent's game is a sure-fire way to risk losing to it. You find ways around your opponents defenses, or you recognize the fact that going head to head against them is going to hurt. A Lot.
3. Many Force powers that can be used at range needs multiple Force Points to do so. So either the PC is rolling lucky or accepting Conflict for using Dark Side pips. I don't see an issue there.
4. Move attacks can be reflected with Reflect. It's treated as a ranged attack (says so in the power write up). All other damaging powers costs Conflict to use if you roll Dark Side or Light Side. That fact WILL curb some players actions.
5. True, but any BBEG should also be replacing the normal skill check difficulty with the rules for "Resisting Force Powers", which is as good if not better than a simple upgrade of 1 or 2 to the attack check.
6. Skipping, although any talent that adds vs Ranged Attacks will affect a Move attack
7. Also skipping, although Armor's +soak bonus will protect against Unleash and Move
8. True.
9. Again, refer to the Resisting Force Powers sidebar, page 195.
10. ...not quite sure what you mean by that...
11. Protect? Which requires you to be a 400xp+ PC to have?
12. True.

I do want to point out that if you're using Supreme Parry, you ARE engaged in a duel. You are spinning your saber around you in a curtain of light blocking all those incoming saber attacks. I also want to point out that, just like how every PC doesn't get access to Improved Parry and Supreme Parry, every NPC with a Lightsaber also should not have those talents every time, all the time.

I can see your concern, I can, but I just don't see it as big an issue as you do because I may have 1 in 4 BBEG-saber slingers with Improved Parry. (Honestly, I'm more worried about them getting burned down by blasters...)

A good GM will give his NPCs variety, and not simply build the same NPC that is built to screw over his PCs and discourage them from having a good fight.

I'm not that worried about compensating for it but other players might.

So you are saying you think Force Power check should disqualify Supreme Parry even if that just impacts the PC? That was my original proposal but I got some feedback that seemed to imply that is rough on the PC and does not impact the adversary, but again that situation on Adversary talents is a bit unclear anyway.

I think it would only affect the PCs, because NPCs use an entirely different set of rules when it comes to talents. They also get fewer of them (simply for mental bandwidth concerns; the GM can only manage so many resources at once. More than 3-4 talents and/or abilities can be draining for a GM running more than one NPC built like that)

I feel I should point out that since the Move:Hurl and Unleash are actual ranged attacks, Ie. combat checks, they would disqualify a character from using Supreme Parry.

And for the rest, yes the opposed checks are more in the GM's hands, but one shouldn't be making assumptions that a rule needs to be implement in this regard because GMs might be too light-handed.

Keep the ruleset lean, give GMs guidelines, and trust them to run their own games. It's KISS, it's easy, it's clean, and it empowers GMs.

Outside of the topic, I would not say Move: Hurl or Unleash qualify as combat checks. They are combined Force Power Checks using Discipline.

Combat checks are defined on p. 147. It lists the skills. (Interestingly Lightsaber is missing from the list but is referenced later so I assume it qualifies as a combat check and they just didn't catch the text from the previous games.)

Maybe Move becasue it says it follows "all the rules for a Ranged attack." Unleash refers specifically to damage rules and not all rules. I guess if they are, though, Reflect works on them.

I'm not uncomfortable with GM adjudication. But Force Power resistance is huge and maybe begs for more guidelines if not precise rules.

At the very least I'd like to see guidelines for each power's resistance.

And I'd really like definitive word on if Force Users can always resist with Discipline, when non-Force users might resist the same power with another skill. This is beyond rules and is fundamental to how the Force works. Can everyone resist Move physically or through sure willpower? Or is it only physically for non Force users and only will for Force users? Does Yoda really have to resist being thrown around the battlefield with his Resilience or being disarmed with his Athletics? Of course not.

And for a big topic the "my other GM does it this way..." will come up.

Let's take Unleash for example. Unopposed it's an average Discipline check.

Say I use it on a PC. I say that makes it opposed.

By the resistance sidebar now the skill used and the opposing skill are up for grabs.

Maybe Discipline vs Discipline? If the attack and defense are a matter of will.

Maybe Coordination or Ranged skill vs Coordination or Discipline vs. Coordination? If it's a matter of physical precision.

If resisting is a matter of will why would soak apply?

If it's physical why does a Force user get to use Discipline?

What does the failure look like? An ineffectual hit? A miss?

These are setting questions beyond just rules or the concept of GM arbitration.

These can make the power easy or hard to hit with or easy or hard to oppose.

And when I rule it do I just tell my players, it might be different next time but that's up to me?

Say I let the Force User resist a power with his (most likely high) Discipline. Then use the same power on the old vet officer and ask him to resist with his bad Coordination. Why can't he use his high Discipline too? Do I say, well you are not a Force User so you can't resist the Force With Discipline? Does the info in the book about the setting back me up? That sort of info is fundamental.

Maybe Coordination or Ranged skill vs Coordination or Discipline vs. Coordination? If it's a matter of physical precision.

If resisting is a matter of will why would soak apply?

If it's physical why does a Force user get to use Discipline?

What does the failure look like? An ineffectual hit? A miss?

And when I rule it do I just tell my players, it might be different next time but that's up to me?

Say I let the Force User resist a power with his (most likely high) Discipline. Then use the same power on the old vet officer and ask him to resist with his bad Coordination. Why can't he use his high Discipline too? Do I say, well you are not a Force User so you can't resist the Force With Discipline? Does the info in the book about the setting back me up? That sort of info is fundamental.

1. Coordination is almost never used to resist an attack barring Coordination Dodge (talent from Performer Specialization in Far Horizons; adds failures equal to Coordination ranks at the cost of a Destiny Point). This is because you can otherwise narrate a miss as a player dodging, particularly with the use of talents like Dodge or inherent ranged defense and the like.

2. From what I can immediately recall, Soak applies to powers that would externally damage players like throwing something at them or shooting lightning at them - ie. similar to if you were manually throwing something at them or firing a blaster at them. So Soak still applies as defensive padding, just not as a Force-proofing tin foil hat.

3. Force users get the option of Discipline because it essentially represents countering the force with the force. That's pretty much you see in Episode III with the Obi-Wan and Anakin duel Force Push thing and with the Force Move battle in Episode II between Yoda and Dooku .

4. Can be whatever you/the player want a failure to look like. Though if an Unleash attack failed to hit a player based on nothing but the default Average difficulty Discipline roll - you may want to avoid something like: "The Inquisitor charges bolts of lightning at you, which fizzles and pops as it hits your Heavy Clothing. No damage," and more of just chalk it up to the player dodging the hit instead.

5. It's better to try and stay consistent if possible. So for Force Move, you shouldn't say 1 session, "Okay, you have to use Resilience to resist being tossed around by Force Move," then switch it around another session and say "You have to use Discipline now," just because. If they can use either of them, then let them, and if they can't use one of them for whatever reason, then explain to them why.

6. It says in the "Resisting Force Power Checks" sidebar that force users can often use Discipline to resist force powers. Again, the ability and use of force users using Discipline can be seen in the above two scenes from Episode II and Episode III - something a non-force user definitely could not do.

These are great points Lathrop. Overall I think we’re on the same page about how this resistance stuff works in the setting. I’m just concerned about how it’s modeled in the rules.

1. Coordination is almost never used to resist an attack barring Coordination Dodge (talent from Performer Specialization in Far Horizons; adds failures equal to Coordination ranks at the cost of a Destiny Point). This is because you can otherwise narrate a miss as a player dodging, particularly with the use of talents like Dodge or inherent ranged defense and the like.

Right. I only say that because neither are Resilience or Athletics, but they are in the examples of resistance, so all skills seem fair game based on the GM and not the ruleset.

2. From what I can immediately recall, Soak applies to powers that would externally damage players like throwing something at them or shooting lightning at them - ie. similar to if you were manually throwing something at them or firing a blaster at them. So Soak still applies as defensive padding, just not as a Force-proofing tin foil hat.

I get that. So Unleash is physically reduced by soak and mentally resisted with Discipline if you are a Force user. But resisted by what if you are a non-Force using PC? I think your answer will vary from GM to GM. And sure you can be ok with that. I’m looking for more guidelines informed by the setting.

3. Force users get the option of Discipline because it essentially represents countering the force with the force. That's pretty much you see in Episode III with the Obi-Wan and Anakin duel Force Push thing and with the Force Move battle in Episode II between Yoda and Dooku .

That’s how I think too. I happen to think Discipline is not the only, or maybe even best, measure though. I think Force Rating should be part of Force Resistance. Maybe absolutely or maybe relative to the attacker’s Force Rating. Anyone can have Discipline but only Force User’s have a Force Rating. If what is being modeled is strenght in the Force resisting then Force Rating seems like it should be a part of it. Personally I feel Discipline is an important part of the equation too. It measures how well you can control what’s in the tank. Force Rating determines what is in the tank.

4. Can be whatever you/the player want a failure to look like. Though if an Unleash attack failed to hit a player based on nothing but the default Average difficulty Discipline roll - you may want to avoid something like: "The Inquisitor charges bolts of lightning at you, which fizzles and pops as it hits your Heavy Clothing. No damage," and more of just chalk it up to the player dodging the hit instead.

My point there was unclear. What I’m saying is regardless of the game rules if I know how a power works in the setting I know what it can look like when it does not. If Unleash can always hit but it’s a matter of mental resistance, that tells me Discipline. If the user can miss with it, it’s more targeting and that points to a different skill. The setting applied.

5. It's better to try and stay consistent if possible. So for Force Move, you shouldn't say 1 session, "Okay, you have to use Resilience to resist being tossed around by Force Move," then switch it around another session and say "You have to use Discipline now," just because. If they can use either of them, then let them, and if they can't use one of them for whatever reason, then explain to them why.

I agree. That’s where I’m coming from.

6. It says in the "Resisting Force Power Checks" sidebar that force users can often use Discipline to resist force powers. Again, the ability and use of force users using Discipline can be seen in the above two scenes from Episode II and Episode III - something a non-force user definitely could not do.

I totally agree about how this works. And it’s fun to see in a game. Those scenes are at the forefront of my mind. But if a knight and my character have the same Will/Discipline we resist the same, even if I’m FR 1 and he’s FR 3. Or maybe mine's even better when he’s been spending all that XP on Force Rating. I think Force Rating should matter in resistance too. Maybe resist with Will and then Force Users can upgrade this once if they have a higher Force Rating. Also, in another Resistance thread I got feedback where other posters read Force Users resisting powers like in the movies as applications of a talent or Protect, which probably illustrates how there can be a lot of different and still valid rulings on the same Force Resistance situation.

If your understanding of resisting Force Powers is that you do so with your strength in the Force, the rules we have now might not work because they can lead to a non-Force User being more resistant to a given power than a Force User. In the end with RAW I think I have to say any character can resist with x skill and if you are a Force User you can resist with Discipline if it’s better. I’d still like to see Force Rating be part of it.

Say you read these rules to say a Force User resists Move with Discipline. A Non-Force Using PC or Nemesis resists with Resilience. Seems like a pretty reasonable ruling.

A PC has to roll against 6 purple to move a Stalking Acklay. That's after spending the XP to get Move, upgrade it with Strength a few times, and get your Force Rating up to reliably move something that big.

Or I rule, well not in this case. It's a Nemesis but it's an animal. But then it's harder for the player to Move Lando than a Silhouette 2 creature? I know as a GM I can juggle all this but a few more guidelines here can't hurt.

Outside of the topic, I would not say Move: Hurl or Unleash qualify as combat checks. They are combined Force Power Checks using Discipline.

Combat checks are defined on p. 147. It lists the skills. (Interestingly Lightsaber is missing from the list but is referenced later so I assume it qualifies as a combat check and they just didn't catch the text from the previous games.)

Maybe Move becasue it says it follows "all the rules for a Ranged attack." Unleash refers specifically to damage rules and not all rules. I guess if they are, though, Reflect works on them.

It's not really outside of the topic...it's pretty much directly relevant to the topic I'm saying,

"here are two powers that won't allow you to use Supreme Parry."

The Unleash power is called a "ranged attack" (page 211). Sidebar on page 148 says "Ranged attacks...are...combat checks." Page 147 says "[A combat check] is also referred to as an attack ." Normally ranged attacks are made with weapons, as you point out. But there are such things as "rules exceptions," which Move: Hurl and Unleash are.

And yeah, Reflect should totally work on Unleash and Move. Not sure about Improved Reflect...I think perhaps that Protect should do that. But using your lightsaber to Reflect Force lighting is super iconic, and seems to be well within the rules.

I'm not uncomfortable with GM adjudication.

Please expound on this, because I'm confused as to why one would be playing an RPG if one wasn't comfortable with GM adjudication. Do you mean you're not comfortable adjudicating as a GM, or that you're not comfortable playing under a GM who is adjudicating?

But Force Power resistance is huge and maybe begs for more guidelines if not precise rules.

At the very least I'd like to see guidelines for each power's resistance.

So...Move is covered well by the page 195 sidebar. Discipline is also called out as the catch-all "Force User" resistance skill. Battle Meditation, Influence, and Bind all have uses that are opposed by Discipline in general. Harm has a use that is opposed by Resilience.

Misdirect, when opposed, might be opposed by Perception.

These are based on the Beta's suggestion to keep it situational. But it's impossible to account for every situation, and with a rigid ruleset one will often (based on my experience) run into a situation where rules just don't work. So I have to hand-wave it and change something.

Better to keep it loose to begin with, so that I don't have to "cheat" as a GM to make things more appropriate to the cinematic/narrative situation.

And I'd really like definitive word on if Force Users can always resist with Discipline, when non-Force users might resist the same power with another skill. This is beyond rules and is fundamental to how the Force works. Can everyone resist Move physically or through sure willpower? Or is it only physically for non Force users and only will for Force users? Does Yoda really have to resist being thrown around the battlefield with his Resilience or being disarmed with his Athletics? Of course not.

"The defending character can use Discipline...if that character is also a Force user." Sounds like it to me. The rest of the skills mentioned are situational suggestions. I would suggest that a person wanting to get knee-deep in this game should get "okay" with situational suggestions.

It's not really outside of the topic...it's pretty much directly relevant to the topic I'm saying,

"here are two powers that won't allow you to use Supreme Parry."

Thanks for weighing in. I'm not sure where I was going with that "outside the topic" comment other than the topic had moved on to resisting Force Powers (my fault) and that was where I was thinking at the time.

Anyway if those powers are combat checks, there are other Talents that refer to Combat Checks that would have to apply to those powers. That would set those powers apart from other powers. And even if they are combat checks there are still plenty of Force powers (even offensive ones) that you can use with Supreme Parry.

The funny thing is here the GM arbitration route is leading us to different conclusions about whether these constitute combat checks. I honestly can't say either way because the rules are unclear and seemingly contradictory. So I have to make an arbitrary call. My call is no. Yours is yes.

I think this is a good example of a beta suggestion that could be helpful. "Is Unleash a combat check?" You could say "Well, let's leave that up to the GM to sort out. It's all part of being a good GM." or you could say "Yeah it would be nice to clear it up if the developers have an intent one way or the other and then the GM can focus on other adjudication."

I'm not uncomfortable with GM adjudication.

Please expound on this, because I'm confused as to why one would be playing an RPG if one wasn't comfortable with GM adjudication. Do you mean you're not comfortable adjudicating as a GM, or that you're not comfortable playing under a GM who is adjudicating?

Bad double negative on my part. I mean "not uncomfortable" as in "not adverse to" or like how you say "I'm not bad" to mean "I'm good." Anyway, sure I'm fine with making calls. It's certainly all part of RPGs with their nooks and crannies where you just have to make calls. I'm fine with making a call like "Does the Adversary talent upgrade the difficulty if you are shooting at a starfighter the villain is piloting." That sort of thing always comes up. Those are rules decisions and the fewer you have to make the better. Little things are a waste of the devs' time to focus on clarifying on but how to resist the Force seems essential.

I like the game becasue reading the dice results is fundamental. Great mechanic and I'm not proposing any change there.

What I'm saying here is the setting could be explained better to be able to make the call about how Force powers work. For example in Saga you knew exactly what resisted every power (for better or worse they told you) or you could use Rebuke. Here it's pretty murky. Can you dodge lighting? Can you resist lightning with sure will?

If that determination is up to me you might get a different answer GM to GM about something very fundamental to the game.