My players are kind of interested in the idea of an all Jedi game in the future, so as preparation, I made a pair of Knight-level Jedi - a Soresu Defender and an Advisor / Makashi Duelist - and an Inquisitor to pit against each other. I did not give the Inquisitor multiple weapons or Parry 5, but gave him Harm, Intense Focus, Crippling Blow, Drive Back, and the ability to use his Cunning 5 with his Lightsaber skill, which I nerfed down to a 2. The idea was that he would push Crippled foes around with Drive Back and pile on the Strain. He also only had the basic 6 damage 2 crit saber.

My first duel lasted only 3 rounds, with the Makashi Jedi reaching her Wound Threshold, while suffering from At the Brink and Crippling Blows, so she retreated. Taking Strain for any move or action also meant she wouldn't be fleeing very far. The Soresu Jedi, however, keeping up Defensive Stance and using a couple Parries to survive long enough to finish off the Inquisitor. He used Harm once, but his Intellect was only a 3, so he couldn't do too much with it except try to regain 6 wounds from the pair of Jedi.

Drive Back was bloody useless, and while the Jedi were injured, the simple fact that two of them were attacking made the duel short work.

My second duel, I adjusted the Inquisitor to have Parry 3 instead of Drive Back, with the caveat that he couldn't use it for free. This duel lasted 5 rounds, with a lot of tense back and forth action. The Makashi Duelist took two criticals, which luckily only amounted to Staggered and Winded, but Parry kept her just below her wound threshold. The Soresu Jedi was disarmed by his own Despair and took a single heavy hit because he couldn't use Parry, but the Makashi Jedi had Hamstrung the Inquisitor at that point, so the both kind of backed off for a moment to get Guarded Stance and Aim going again. The Inquisitor botched what should have been a good roll with Intense Focus (read: should have dropped one of the Jedi), and in a single turn, he jumped from 9/22 wounds to 24/22 and lost a hand. The tables shifted very abruptly thanks to some nice rolls. Both Jedi were one wound shy of their thresholds, and very high on strain, plus they took some minor critical hits.

So I learned that a slightly nerfed Inquisitor is about on par with two Knight-level characters... But my group consists of 4 players, so I'm looking for advice...

-If I have 4 players who are somewhere between starting level and Knight-level, who have a few sessions under their belt and recently acquired lightsabers, how would they stack up against an Inquisitor? I feel like I'd want to keep Parry 3 instead of Parry 5, but would he get overwhelmed without having minion backup?

-If I have 4 players who reach Knight-level, do I pit them against a pair of slightly nerfed Inquisitors, one full-power Inquisitor with, say, dual weapons (less criticals in exchange for hitting multiple people), a Master / Apprentice combo, or just back up the Inquisitor with a lot of buddies?

Are you using Nemesis level play for the Inquisitor where he takes two turns in each combat turn? One at his normal position in initiative and another at the end of each turn?

Have you considered putting the Inquisitor into a group with minions to soak the first few attacks to absorb attacks.rather than increase the number of inquisitors

I only allotted the Inquisitor one turn for my test duels...

I do like the idea of one Inquisitor being able to take on the party solo to give the really distinct feel that this guy is a beast - like how Vader just pushes Luke around on Cloud City, but at the same time, I don't want the players to feel like I'm unfairly dishing out extra turns to make him win and railroad the plot (which I don't want to do, but having them be outmatched is fine if retreat is an option).

EDIT: Taking on the whole group solo would only be during an early duel where they're not yet at Knight-level. The next time around, minions or an apprentice would be a definite option.

The Edge of the Empire GM kit has optional rules for making Advanced Nemesis opponents where giving them the second action at the end of each turn is recommended to make them feel more challenging for a larger party.

The other option would be burying your Nemesis in a group of minions who receive wounds and strain turned into wounds first before affecting the Inquisitor, the rules for doing that are in the Age of Rebellion GM Kit.

Using the "no strain for Parry/Reflect" and the "act twice per round", worked fine on my games

Based on my own impressions with using inquisitors, they feel like they are meant to be re-occurring villains, not one-shot baddies. That's why they can parry and reflect all day long. The rules allow you to really put on the pressure and when the PCs finally overcome their long-time adversary, it's a real triumph.

With that being said, what's your intention with the inquisitor? Is he a reoccurring baddy or a one-time evil guy intended to be fought and killed?

Based on my own impressions with using inquisitors, they feel like they are meant to be re-occurring villains, not one-shot baddies. That's why they can parry and reflect all day long. The rules allow you to really put on the pressure and when the PCs finally overcome their long-time adversary, it's a real triumph.

With that being said, what's your intention with the inquisitor? Is he a reoccurring baddy or a one-time evil guy intended to be fought and killed?

Definitely NOT a one-shot bad guy... I love recurring villains. The main issue is that if I give they guy two turns instead of one or let him skip out on strain for Parry / Reflect, then he's no longer human in the eyes of the player. Now he's some special gimmick that the GM is throwing at us to ensure the plot goes one way or the other.

If he can solo the group of 4 without those perks, then the players will go, "Wow, that's a heck of a villain... We gotta play things smart next time because he's pretty BA."

If he solos the group of 4 with those perks, then the players will go, "We got beaten by the GM's unfair gimmick boss because his plot demanded it.."

It's all about how the players perceive the fight.

Based on my own impressions with using inquisitors, they feel like they are meant to be re-occurring villains, not one-shot baddies. That's why they can parry and reflect all day long. The rules allow you to really put on the pressure and when the PCs finally overcome their long-time adversary, it's a real triumph.

With that being said, what's your intention with the inquisitor? Is he a reoccurring baddy or a one-time evil guy intended to be fought and killed?

Definitely NOT a one-shot bad guy... I love recurring villains. The main issue is that if I give they guy two turns instead of one or let him skip out on strain for Parry / Reflect, then he's no longer human in the eyes of the player. Now he's some special gimmick that the GM is throwing at us to ensure the plot goes one way or the other.

If he can solo the group of 4 without those perks, then the players will go, "Wow, that's a heck of a villain... We gotta play things smart next time because he's pretty BA."

If he solos the group of 4 with those perks, then the players will go, "We got beaten by the GM's unfair gimmick boss because his plot demanded it.."

It's all about how the players perceive the fight.

I have foreseen the same problem but have attempted to just flat out head it off from the start of the campaign by telling the players NPCs and monsters aren't built to the same rules as PCs. I mean, there has to be a flip side to Minion rules and Adversaries, no? Do they want a squad of five storm troopers to be fully capable starting / low-level character equivalents? No? Then they have to accept that at the other end of the spectrum there are people who are the opposite and supremely capable. Yes, Virginia - Vader can do things you can't. He's Vader.

Chiefly I did this because of the Adversary trait, though it still applies to Inquisitors. I told the group that some powerful and special opponents were harder to overcome and this was represented by difficulty upgrades when you oppose them and that's how the game works. They accepted it and I don't think they felt penalized or that it was unfair - so long as they knew what to expect and I was straight with them. I think if I just sprung it on them late game when they tried to take on some special nemesis, they might have reacted less well.

I would try that, given that the extra action is a valuable way of balancing things and achieving the Deadly Villain trope so necessary to Star Wars. I mean - do you or they want a game where Darth Maul is beaten to death by security guards because there are four of them and he is only one?

games full of gimmicks for balance and perception, that's why minions are minions, but I getcha you want players to feel like they are playing other players, which to be honest 4 on 1 without a gimmick it wont balance well

I've used the advanced nemesis rule to allow NPCs to have 2 actions slots. When initiative first started I was very open and honest with the players.

"This guy is a badass and more competent than anyone you have faced before. He or she will have 2 attack slots this round, instead of one."

If you want the 5 vs 1 feel of a WoW raid boss, this is the best way to handle it without inflating the NPCs soak, wound threshold. or strain threshold.

I've used the advanced nemesis rule to allow NPCs to have 2 actions slots. When initiative first started I was very open and honest with the players.

"This guy is a badass and more competent than anyone you have faced before. He or she will have 2 attack slots this round, instead of one."

If you want the 5 vs 1 feel of a WoW raid boss, this is the best way to handle it without inflating the NPCs soak, wound threshold. or strain threshold.

games full of gimmicks for balance and perception, that's why minions are minions, but I getcha you want players to feel like they are playing other players, which to be honest 4 on 1 without a gimmick it wont balance well

Sound advice... Ah well, I'll just have to talk to my players and explain things clearly.

Just because he has two actions doesn't mean he has to use them both to beatstick down players, you could always use the extra action for additional defensive actions and maneuvers to help illustrate to players early on when they meet your inquisitor what a beast he truly is capable of being without making early encounters impossible.

As the players gain skills in excess of the Inquisitor starting amounts the Inquisitor can subtly improve, maybe earning a higher Force Rating or additional Force Powers rather than higher characteristics. if he starts needing more help there is always Cotorsis-weave armored robes, cybernetic limbs resulting from an early encounter in which he may have been defeated or encountering him among minion groups, rather than raising his wounds and soak to excessively high levels. When your players finally defeat the villain the victory will be all the sweeter.

i am a firm proponent of using parry/reflect without spending strain while using inquisitors.

I want the "Oh S#!7" from my players as they realize how bad this guy is

Yeah, as suggested previously, consider letting him take 2 turns per round, and also consider him bringing a small platoon of stromtroopers with him. He is an Inquisitor after all.

Regarding not spending strain for Parry / Reflect, liberal spending of Advantage to regain Strain would help here if one didn't want to go all the way and make the power free. An Inquisitor ought to be getting a lot of those to spend.

The main problem is that this system really isn't built to accommodate a solo boss battle, particularly when it's several PCs vs. one bad guy.

But then again, the movies avoided this as well. Vader only engaged his foes in one-on-one battles when it came to duels, and even during the trench runs he largely had his wingmen fly cover for him in case somebody tried to do to him what he was doing to the Rebel pilots.

Closest we got to "BBEG vs. group" was Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon vs. Maul in TPM and then Obi-Wan and Anakin vs. Dooku (initially at least) in RotS. In Maul's case, he kept moving about and eventually managed to isolate Qui-Gon to dispatch him, leaving the far-less experienced Obi-Wan for him to deal with.

And I think that's part of the point, is to NOT treat your Inquisitor as some D&D solo beast, but have them use smart tactics. Since they've got 2 ranks in all Knowledge skills, for me this includes Knowledge (Warfare) from Age of Rebellion, meaning they'd have enough savvy to make efforts to ensure that any fights they have are stacked in their favor as much as possible. And if that includes bringing along senior ISB Agents and a whole bunch of stormtroopers, then so be it. Or better yet, divide and conquer, splitting up the party through various means direct or indirect to cut down the number of foes the Inquisitor has to face. And don't be afraid to play dirty; these guys are should combat pragmatists to the point that no tactic is "unsporting" if it ensures their victory, including things like disarming lightsabers and Sundering other weapons; 3 Advantage is all you need to disable a weapon for the rest of the fight, and with 4 ranks in Lightsaber and a 3 in the related Characteristic, that shouldn't be too hard to achieve.

Vader might well be a "noble demon" in terms of his fights, but an Inquisitor should be as ruthless as possible. Heck, take a look at the Inquisitor from Star Wars Rebels. Not once did he fight the entire crew of the The Ghost at once, and instead picked his moments to strike and thus focus on his primary target: Kanan. Your own Inquisitors should take note of that and follow a similar tact, again using "divide and conquer" tactics to keep the entire party from dog-piling them.

Sounds fun! I would keep him the first set only because: Sith aren't dumb like the silly movies. Read some of the novels. They strike from shadows and secrecy and...are evil-- they will kill with no hesitation. The book Plageius I believe he mentions...do not taunt or talk to your foe...do not revel while fighting or flurish; those are moments you could be striking down the enemy. Gloat after your enemy is dead at your feet. Basically he is saying don't bad guy monologue because you will lose.

Some of this stuff being said-- he may be badass but as a one on one. He should be smart. The odds should also be a factor. Just because you are strong enough and fast enough to fight two...you could always win against one. Put those odds always in your favor. He shouldn't just leap forth like dumb Darth Maul. Maul was quick and fast but still no match for two JEDI regardless of his flashy moves. His fault and his folly. Dooku is shown incorrectly-- one of the only JEDI who had mastered all the forms -- he was LETHAL in combat and his profile reflected that in ep2. He took on both obi and Anakin basically crushing Anakin out the gate and waylaying obi pretty quick. He was smart here...his force power was not strong enough against Yoda nor could he land a good blow. After fighting two JEDI his stamina would have been shot and a fresh little Yoda right off the bench was going to finish him off. Pretty impressive of you apply the RPG mechanics to Dooku. But here is the kicker-- EVIL...bad guys are usually not bound by rules and he threw Yoda off by force pulling the rocks down to crush the knocked out JEDI.

Coming back full circle. Be smart with the NPC and his one on one skills should be scary. Lay a trap or even have some chump Sith apprentices ready to die for a JEDI kill. The minions dot have to be strong but enough to cause annoyance and tilt the battle in the sighs favor. Hell he could force them to split up...the Sith apprentices attack some helpless hostages making the Jedi choose...attack the Sith or save the hostages or split up?! What a twist! Or have some sort of trap where he lures one into a force field forcing the other JEDI to watch in horror like obi did when Qui got rocked.

Sith are smart too...sneaky...and bad guys. So make them reflect that. Bane was strong but not quick. He was actually pretty smart though. He and His apprentice had been attacked by 3 JEDI...and they were losing bad (back to the numbers game 3 > 2 and 2>1) he realized the Jedi was battle meditating and increasing his friends combat-- so once he killed that guy the numbers were even and eventually the killed the Jedi.

You could have a few Sith battle meditating the Inquisitor amping his stats and than the Jedi can realize the Sith in the back aren't doing anything Are Actually doing something! They must race to beat them down to weaken the inquisitor! A mini boss battle where the meditaters are I the rear way back and subtly enhancing the boss!

I haven't seen FAD beta I'm waiting for FAD core but you can easily just have one Sith minion give the Inq a set of rules and another give him another so he becomes super deadly. Once that minion goes down those OP rules are gone.

You could have a few Sith battle meditating the Inquisitor amping his stats and than the Jedi can realize the Sith in the back aren't doing anything Are Actually doing something! They must race to beat them down to weaken the inquisitor! A mini boss battle where the meditaters are I the rear way back and subtly enhancing the boss!

Or the old KOTOR boss battle trick, where there are prisoners whose life force is being stolen and fed to the boss, to amp up his power. Do you keep fighting the boss directly, or do you kill the prisoners so that they can’t feed the boss?

Nice little Conflict dilemma there, too.

So what have you guys used for custom Inquisitors?

I'm going to build a besalisk inquisitor inspired by Pong Krell from the Clone Wars cartoon, and I used the rules to make a cannibalistic miraluka fallen jedi.

...yes I realize that the latter one is seriously messed up.

Eating people isn't as messed up as slaughtering little kids...

I have two bad guys made using the Inquisitor rules. One was based on the badass art that Desslok found (The reimagined Darth Vaders), who's a heavily augmented Starkiller clone - he's all about brute force and completely lacks finesse. He doesn't have reflect or parry, but he has a fully modded lightsaber, 7brawn, and drive back. He'll probably only fight the PCs once directly, but when he does it'll be like them getting hit by a freight train - he will be tough and relentless, but he won't back down. Until then, he's an antagonist with an army of Ganks, Droids (He was introduced as the mastermind behind Dead in the Water in my campaign), and Dark Troopers.

My other one is an actual inquisitor, who exists solely to pursue PCs who blatantly use lightsabers or force powers. She is a sly, cunning assassin with liberal use of the misdirect tree; she will never attack unless she feels confident of victory, and isn't too prideful to requisition additional forces from the local Imperials.

Eating people isn't as messed up as slaughtering little kids...

Touche

EDIT: Just finished Narex, the besalisk inquisitor and decided on him being like the augmented Starkiller clone: all direct brute force.

So what have you guys used for custom Inquisitors?

I'm going to build a besalisk inquisitor inspired by Pong Krell from the Clone Wars cartoon, and I used the rules to make a cannibalistic miraluka fallen jedi.

...yes I realize that the latter one is seriously messed up.

Did the latter eat his/her victims eyes?

So what have you guys used for custom Inquisitors?

I'm going to build a besalisk inquisitor inspired by Pong Krell from the Clone Wars cartoon, and I used the rules to make a cannibalistic miraluka fallen jedi.

...yes I realize that the latter one is seriously messed up.

Did the latter eat his/her victims eyes?

.

...she does now. Thanks for the idea!