Also remember that system is open enough to just exchange the atribute of the skill. Like Skulldugery that you can use it with Agility or Cunning, or Mechanics that you can use your Brawn if its necessary, just use, with common sense and GM permissions of course, Agility for Melee or Brawl skills if do you consider that a concrete weapons deserves it.

You could always not change any rules and just tell the player to be patient and progress the character instead of wanting to be uber out of the box.

You could always not change any rules and just tell the player to be patient and progress the character instead of wanting to be uber out of the box.

There's a difference between 'uber out of the box' and 'ineffective compared to the rest of the party'. If you're 2G down on the rest of the party unless you sigh, break theme and and use your blaster pistol instead of your cutlass (same attack difficulty in melee, uses agility, longer range, higher damage...) then you're not going to be happy.

Remember that alternatives do exist and if this player wanted to be OP in melee using Agility they'd be using Ranged (Light) and a Heavy Blaster Pistol. They're clearly just trying to make a themed character.

You could always not change any rules and just tell the player to be patient and progress the character instead of wanting to be uber out of the box.

There's a difference between 'uber out of the box' and 'ineffective compared to the rest of the party'. If you're 2G down on the rest of the party unless you sigh, break theme and and use your blaster pistol instead of your cutlass (same attack difficulty in melee, uses agility, longer range, higher damage...) then you're not going to be happy.

Remember that alternatives do exist and if this player wanted to be OP in melee using Agility they'd be using Ranged (Light) and a Heavy Blaster Pistol. They're clearly just trying to make a themed character.

Then spend the xp, pick brawn, and be good with the cutlass. If you want to be good with both, that's uber out of the box. I agree with everyone else, Agility is already the go to attribute as it is, this suggestion only makes it more so and raises the irrelevancy of Brawn.

Then spend the xp, pick brawn, and be good with the cutlass. If you want to be good with both, that's uber out of the box. I agree with everyone else, Agility is already the go to attribute as it is, this suggestion only makes it more so and raises the irrelevancy of Brawn.

But... it does nothing to make Brawn irrelevant. If you want to dump Brawn, you can already do so and just use a pistol and be far *better* than a character with a rapier/cutlass. Seriously, shooting a pistol in melee has the same difficulty as making a melee attack, and melee weapons and upgrades are no better (and mostly worse) than pistols. It's not "uber".

It would just make it so certain melee character archetypes (agile swashbuckler) were as valid at low levels as other archetypes (strong thug). There is no benefit to this character using a cutlass over a pistol; they are already handicapping themselves. Insisting they use their low Brawn just handicaps them further; insisting they buy up Brawn tells them "No, agile swashbucklers are not supported by these rules". I can't see why they shouldn't be- this is Star Wars, after all!

it already has a tree built.around it, its called makashi duelist. don't cheapen an entire specialization by giving a free ranging talent. and lightsaber doesn't represent a single weapon, it represents a class of weapons that uses the lightsaber skill, just as the melee skill and ranged light skill do . again, there's already a class for this, sorry, specialization (still can't get over 13 years of d20 training). gage them take the specialization and get everything involved with being a swashbuckler. and feel free to replace one skill with another, that's not gonna break the game.

Yes and no. Although there are several types of Lightsabres it's not as potentially broad a category as all Melee weapons. Those Specialization Trees specify Lightsabre skill and not Melee and no such equivalent exists even though they had two whole books and several supplements to introduce it. I think this speak volumes as to why it's a bad idea.

The point I was making was that there are several prerequisites that are needed to allow a PC to use a skill other than Brawn for Melee (Specialization, Lightsabre Skill, a Unique Weapon not readably available that is unlike any Melee weapon in its use - at least in this setting). So changing a single Talent so you can get an Uber-Characteristic (which Sam has said was something they intentionally tried to avoid) very well may contribute to the breaking of Combat.

So, if you're going to go down this path you should at least make it cost the equivalent of what it would cost for the whole cupcake, not just the frosting on top.

For the record, this is the character:

Arcz Blakeney

So the rules change is really just academic. For the player, the issue is one of style—not mechanics.

With a Brawn and Agility of 3, he could do one or the other. He's not trying to min-max or anything of the sort; he just wants to call it Agility + Melee.

I dunno man. I think it's fine. Even if he goes and increases his Agility to 5, that's still just one skill that he can use with Agility, and he'd be trading some extra Soak for it. So he'd still be at a disadvantage going toe-to-toe with an equally skilled, Brawny swordsman.

I'd give it to him, while throwing in a bunch caveats (e.g. "Only X type of weapon," "must be one-handed," "no weighted heads," "I reserve the right to make alterations as needed"). It should be fine.

So the rules change is really just academic. For the player, the issue is one of style—not mechanics.

With a Brawn and Agility of 3, he could do one or the other. He's not trying to min-max or anything of the sort; he just wants to call it Agility + Melee.

I dunno man. I think it's fine. Even if he goes and increases his Agility to 5, that's still just one skill that he can use with Agility, and he'd be trading some extra Soak for it. So he'd still be at a disadvantage going toe-to-toe with an equally skilled, Brawny swordsman.

I'd give it to him, while throwing in a bunch caveats (e.g. "Only X type of weapon," "must be one-handed," "no weighted heads," "I reserve the right to make alterations as needed"). It should be fine.

Well if it's just academic then just use Brawn and call it whatever you want.

It's not just one skill, it's every Agility skill that gets increased when he raises the Characteristic and there are qquite a few more Agility based skills than Brawn ones.

Well if it's just academic then just use Brawn and call it whatever you want.

It's not just one skill, it's every Agility skill that gets increased when he raises the Characteristic and there are qquite a few more Agility based skills than Brawn ones.

It's not gonna break your game. Melee weapons are nearly always inferior to blaster weapons. If Lightsabers in EotE could use Brawn or Agility, and the devs were okay with that, I see nothing wrong with creating a new Melee weapon that can be used with Brawn or Agility. It's not gonna be anywhere near as powerful as a lightsaber, even one from F&D that's been stripped of all modifications.

It's not just one skill, it's every Agility skill that gets increased when he raises the Characteristic and there are qquite a few more Agility based skills than Brawn ones.

Right, so my reasoning is, what's one more skill? Especially when you limit it to a single weapon or weapon type?

It's not gonna break your game. Melee weapons are nearly always inferior to blaster weapons. If Lightsabers in EotE could use Brawn or Agility, and the devs were okay with that, I see nothing wrong with creating a new Melee weapon that can be used with Brawn or Agility. It's not gonna be anywhere near as powerful as a lightsaber, even one from F&D that's been stripped of all modifications.

I think I'm not explaining it well. The point about the number of Skills affected is the issue. All the EXP the Player doesn't spend on Brawn he can instead spend on Agility and get not the same result but a much better rate of return. You get a ripple effect across a larger number of skills for just raising a single Characteristic. He only has to raise one Characteristic to raise his Ranged and Engaged Combat stats and on top of that all his Agility based Skills go up as well . This is exactly what we mean what we call Agility an Uber-Characteristic.

Now with characters developed in F&D they are balanced by the fact they are spending a lot of their EXP on Force abilities, have fewer Career Skills and aren't going to be able to whip that Lightsabre out all the time or risk attracting too much attention so will have to train other Combat skills as well. If you allow any Career type to do this with any Melee weapon you're really just giving up on balance all together. This is not okay with the Devs or they would have, as I said, done this in one of the two CBRs or one of the Splatbooks.

It's your table so do you want but don't try and pass it off as anything but what it really is, which is Munchkinism.

Then spend the xp, pick brawn, and be good with the cutlass. If you want to be good with both, that's uber out of the box. I agree with everyone else, Agility is already the go to attribute as it is, this suggestion only makes it more so and raises the irrelevancy of Brawn.

But... it does nothing to make Brawn irrelevant. If you want to dump Brawn, you can already do so and just use a pistol and be far *better* than a character with a rapier/cutlass. Seriously, shooting a pistol in melee has the same difficulty as making a melee attack, and melee weapons and upgrades are no better (and mostly worse) than pistols. It's not "uber".

It would just make it so certain melee character archetypes (agile swashbuckler) were as valid at low levels as other archetypes (strong thug). There is no benefit to this character using a cutlass over a pistol; they are already handicapping themselves. Insisting they use their low Brawn just handicaps them further; insisting they buy up Brawn tells them "No, agile swashbucklers are not supported by these rules". I can't see why they shouldn't be- this is Star Wars, after all!

Why should using a sword as easy as using a gun ? That's a fairly large assumption and one that frankly isn't supported in reality . Using firearms requires a far lower threshold of practice and competence to be lethal . I don't see any reason for a game to be different other then there's a player character whose impatient and doesn't want to spend the time and experience to get better .

It's kinda interesting to see which ideas and questions keep popping up as a thread.

If you allow any Career type to do this with any Melee weapon you're really just giving up on balance all together.

I agree, which is why I specifically said this:

Right, so my reasoning is, what's one more skill? Especially when you limit it to a single weapon or weapon type?

and this:

With a Brawn and Agility of 3, he could do one or the other. He's not trying to min-max or anything of the sort; he just wants to call it Agility + Melee.

I dunno man. I think it's fine. Even if he goes and increases his Agility to 5, that's still just one skill that he can use with Agility, and he'd be trading some extra Soak for it. So he'd still be at a disadvantage going toe-to-toe with an equally skilled, Brawny swordsman.

I'd give it to him, while throwing in a bunch caveats (e.g. " Only X type of weapon, " "must be one-handed," "no weighted heads," " I reserve the right to make alterations as needed" ). It should be fine.

And this:

I don't think I've ever suggested making this sort of thing universally applicable. But some house rules can be made available at some cost to the player, and I think the compromises I'm suggesting are balanced. This sort of house rule is not right for every table, and it should be applied at on a case-by-case basis and contain caveats that allow the GM & player in question to revisit the rule and see how it's working, but IMO this is the simplest and cleanest solution that keeps the player happy and keeps gameplay "balanced" (as much as it can be!).

Edit: Spelling...

If you do implement this house rule, make sure your players are okay with it. Using Agi for melee weapons sounds fun an innocent, but the politico may then want to use Presence to shoot her pistol, or the Slicer would love to use intellect with his fusion cutter. If you are fine with this level of escalation, be my guest.

Perhaps an attachment for one-handed melee weapons that allows them to be used with Agility rather than Brawn (for the dice pool, damage would still be Brawn-based) would be better for the game than adding a new skill.

Why should using a sword as easy as using a gun ? That's a fairly large assumption and one that frankly isn't supported in reality . Using firearms requires a far lower threshold of practice and competence to be lethal . I don't see any reason for a game to be different other then there's a player character whose impatient and doesn't want to spend the time and experience to get better .

... Gameplay. Thematics. . This is a heroic action game, in a setting where melee combat is commonly portrayed alongside ranged fighting. Arguing 'realism' and 'earn your fun' makes it sound like we're discussing 3e or something (or worse, GURPS ).

Perhaps an attachment for one-handed melee weapons that allows them to be used with Agility rather than Brawn (for the dice pool, damage would still be Brawn-based) would be better for the game than adding a new skill.

Money is a lot easier to come by than skill points in most games. You could spend 500 credits on a duelling handle and boom, now you can use Agility- or , you could spend 5-10-15-etc. XP.

If you do implement this house rule, make sure your players are okay with it. Using Agi for melee weapons sounds fun an innocent, but the politico may then want to use Presence to shoot her pistol, or the Slicer would love to use intellect with his fusion cutter. If you are fine with this level of escalation, be my guest.

This is a transparently daft slippery slope argument. C'mon, you can do better than that.

If you do implement this house rule, make sure your players are okay with it. Using Agi for melee weapons sounds fun an innocent, but the politico may then want to use Presence to shoot her pistol, or the Slicer would love to use intellect with his fusion cutter. If you are fine with this level of escalation, be my guest.

This is a transparently daft slippery slope argument. C'mon, you can do better than that.

Nah, I agree. It's not really a slippery slope argument; it's pointing out a direction that some players may take. Some players could make those arguments for their characters, and it's smart to be prepared for it if, and when, they do so.

If you do implement this house rule, make sure your players are okay with it. Using Agi for melee weapons sounds fun an innocent, but the politico may then want to use Presence to shoot her pistol, or the Slicer would love to use intellect with his fusion cutter. If you are fine with this level of escalation, be my guest.

This is a transparently daft slippery slope argument. C'mon, you can do better than that.

Nah, I agree. It's not really a slippery slope argument; it's pointing out a direction that some players may take. Some players could make those arguments for their characters, and it's smart to be prepared for it if, and when, they do so.

Away is right. I may have been a little cheeky (and escalation was a poor word to use. In both cases, my apologies), but I just wanted to bring this to your attention so you will be prepared for it in case your players bring it up. If you make a special exception for one player, be prepared to make the same exception for the whole table.

Why should using a sword as easy as using a gun ? That's a fairly large assumption and one that frankly isn't supported in reality . Using firearms requires a far lower threshold of practice and competence to be lethal . I don't see any reason for a game to be different other then there's a player character whose impatient and doesn't want to spend the time and experience to get better .

... Gameplay. Thematics. . This is a heroic action game, in a setting where melee combat is commonly portrayed alongside ranged fighting. Arguing 'realism' and 'earn your fun' makes it sound like we're discussing 3e or something (or worse, GURPS ).

Perhaps an attachment for one-handed melee weapons that allows them to be used with Agility rather than Brawn (for the dice pool, damage would still be Brawn-based) would be better for the game than adding a new skill.

Money is a lot easier to come by than skill points in most games. You could spend 500 credits on a duelling handle and boom, now you can use Agility- or , you could spend 5-10-15-etc. XP.

If you do implement this house rule, make sure your players are okay with it. Using Agi for melee weapons sounds fun an innocent, but the politico may then want to use Presence to shoot her pistol, or the Slicer would love to use intellect with his fusion cutter. If you are fine with this level of escalation, be my guest.

This is a transparently daft slippery slope argument. C'mon, you can do better than that.

Suggesting that tweaking rules to make things easier equals thematic or character concept is a pseudo point of view. It is neither. It is repackaging power gaming and trying to sell it as something else imo. The rules allow for someone to be good at melee or good at ranged right from the start, they just don't allow for both. Wanting to have it all right away doesn't equal thematic, it equals impatient.

In this case, though, 2P, the PC has equal Brawn and Agility. And he has 2 ranks in Melee, none in Ranged (Anything). It really doesn't smack of power gaming here. This is what makes me comfortable prescribing such house rules.

In this case, though, 2P, the PC has equal Brawn and Agility. And he has 2 ranks in Melee, none in Ranged (Anything). It really doesn't smack of power gaming here. This is what makes me comfortable prescribing such house rules.

I'm not making any point with the OP, it's with TT and the OP already thumbed up my opinion that the PC could simply be patient and their concept will be realized. Concept and theme shouldn't be realized at creation otherwise what's the point of playing at all?

I updated the link Interesting discussion peeps.

Also - RELAX! I was just asking for my player as a concerned GM. It's immaterial if it happens now or later. He was just interested in knowing if there was a possibility of doing that. Short answer - there isn't, but there ARE plenty of options out there for me to look at and that's awesome so thanks to everyone

I'd not allow it. If it works at your table so be it, but to me it's just throwing to much importance on agility and, as another poster pointed out, leads you into dangerous terrotory of other players then wondering if they could use other skills with other stats since another player could and I can easily see arguments being made for many skills to use alternate stats but I wouldn't simply because the point of the assigned stats is to attempt and balance out importance of each stat and not giving any one stat to much. I mean agility already covers 3 combat skills, and sure you could say "with a specific type of weapon" but then if the player doesn't use other types of weapons then that's not really a drawback, they just have to leaf through the books for their favorite and walla, no real drawback aside from the rare situation where their weapon "type" is unavailable to them.
Now I think if a player at my table told me his concept and brought up this issue I'd explain the mechanics. It's not necessary for them to have a high agility if they want to play an agile combat type player, the results are just narrative. Ie they could describe their success's with high brawn as deftly moving around their opponent as agility doesn't add to defense as is anyways it doesn't represent this anyways yet brawn does add to melee prowess.
...OR if they insisted on having a character focused on agility then I'd suggest some of the following:
-Investing in the skill. A character with 2 brawn and 3 melee is the same as a character with 2 melee and 3 brawn after all and best yet skill rating is cheaper and more accurately represents training the character had received over natural prowess which the stat would represent.
-Investing in talents such as:

...soft spot, to show their cunning allowing them to throw their foe off with witty banter to distract or deceive them.
...Lethal blows, to show that while they may not be big and strong enough to inflict large gashes they know "just" where to hit to make vital organs fail and the like.
...Quick Strike, to show how their fast reactions and agile maneuvers give them the edge on opponents who aren't as quick on their feet.
...Dodge to represent their ability to quickly move around their opponents.
...Deadly Accuracy to represent their superb training and swordsmanship giving them a lethal edge.
etc, etc, etc there are plenty more that would fit this kind of character build and while you might need to go through a tree or two to get them they're certainly all doable without making any changes to the core.

I think the best option may be to use the F&D Specialisation that uses Agility for Lightsaber and just change things up to account for the lack of a Force rating or force talents