Hi folks,

as mentioned before, I´m a bit disappointed not to have any RotJ/ RotS duel rules, in my opinion the 50s adventure fencing duel is a huge part of Star Wars. The samurai type battles are okay, but I wanted something more, so I made a few rules up.
Disclaimer:
1) These duels can take long, that´s why they are only for Nemesis Tier NPCs and PCs. They are made for great, epic showdowns.
2) I have NOT tested any of this, I written this all together last night.
3) I have written some quotes or descriptions before the advantage/ threat actions. They are not meant literally, it is more of an idea what that actions can mean. To fit the cinematic feel, it is meant to be abstract and should be used narratively.

The main reason I have posted it here are you. I will make a few testings, maybe you can do it as well when you like it and share your thoughts. Feel free to give me suggestions to make them better (or simply change them, if you like). I´m also interested in your opinion, looking forward to them.

EDIT: My supercool word table seems to be not working in the forum. I search a way to give you the file tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Keep on gaming,

Dennis

Star Wars Duels

A duel can be started if:

1) A PC or a Nemesis Tier NPC attacks a PC or a Nemesis Tier NPC in melee.

(-> This is for the reason the duels should be used-> Epic showdowns. So they can´t be used by a nobody and will only come up when it´s important)

2) The attacker and the defender have weapons that can block each other. So a duel can be started between Lightsaber vs. Lightsaber, Lightsaber vs. Lightsaber proof melee weapon, melee weapon vs. Melee weapon, hand-to-hand vs. Hand-to-hand. A duel cannot be started between Melee weapon or Lightsaber vs. Hand-to-hand, Lightsaber vs. Non-lightsaber proof weapon. In borderline cases (hand-to-hand vs. Vibroknife, Lightsaber vs. Force Pike) the GM decides, if a duel can be started.

3) The defender decides to commit to a duel (see below). The attacker cannot refuse.

(-> The Defender has many reasons to commit, because he does not want to get hit, the attacker sure wants to hit him. That´s why it´s done that way).

If a duel cannot be started, resolve the melee attack normally.

When a duel is possible, the defender chooses, if he wants to commit to the duel. If so, the duel is started and can only be stopped if both players agree, an action allows it (see below), one player yields or is defeated. A duel can be resolved with more than two participants, so fights like Darth Maul vs. Obi van and Qui Gon can be simulated, rules for that on the bottom.

As long the duel last, both participants can only use the full round action “Duel” in their initiative slot, they cannot use maneuvers or other actions, that they haven´t gained through the “Duel actions”. Regardless who the Attacker and who the Defender is, all participants can potentially do damage, even it is not their turn.

If one participant uses the “Duel” action, all participants roll a combat roll against a certain difficulty. The difficulty can be modified due to the circumstances (it would be harder to fight while balancing on a pipe over a lava pit), default is dd . Adversary does not apply, as does other talents. They can be used if a participant lands an attack (see below).

After all participants have rolled, they compare the s against each other. The participant with most s scores them against his enemy. If he collects more s than the CUNNING of his enemy, he removes a number of s scores equal to the CUNNING of his enemy and makes a regular attack against his enemy. If he i.e. doubles the CUNNING, he would get two attacks. These attacks will be resolved normally, offensive and defensive talents, such as i.e. Adversary or Reflect can be used

If a participant wins and his opponent had scored s on him, he first cancels these s before he scores netto s against the opponent (like in a chase).

A “Duel” action has special uses for advantages and Threats, to simulate the tense cinematic style of the classic Star Wars duels with the 50s adventure feel:

Advantages and Theats in Duels

Adventages + Triumph

a or x

Bravery: Recover 1 Strain

(-> Player gets the upper hand or shows bravery and boosts himself with Bravery)

Pressure: Inflict 1 Strain on the opponent.

(-> The opponent is pressed. If a combatant is to powerful, it can be clever to win through exhaustion, giving the duelist another tactic to win).

Advantage: Gain b or bestow b in the next Duel action.

(-> same as in vanilla)

Provoke/ lower aggression: Offer your opponent b . If he takes it in the next attack, he gains 1 Conflict.

(-> When your main goal is not to defeat, but to seduce/ rescue your opponent, that´s a good thing. Light side users show, that they care and are not here to kill the opponent, dark side users will provoke openings to trigger aggression. It should be noted that light side users wozld try to gain some, but not much conflict, so the opponent has the chance to increase his morality).

Use your anger: Get 1 Conflict for s . Only once per “Duel” action

(-> Anger makes you strong! Dangerous for Light siders and a common feat of dark siders)

Move the Duel: Move all Dueling participants one range band, they all stay engaged. Maximum 2 per turn, doing it a second time costs 2 Strain.

(-> Maybe you want to go to a certain point, so you fall nack or press your opponent in a direction. Narratively it fits well, because Jedi do that all the time. Tactically it mades sense. In the original rules, you don´t have much reason or opportunity to do this. So the Duel can be moved without loosing a term=

aa or x

Change surroundings (either through a move and chase or by destroying something): upgrade or degrade the Duel difficulty for all participants. This stays that way until the difficulty is changed again. Your choice: The duel moves one range band.

(-> Much of the meat and the cinematic heart if this system. With that rule, the characters jump between collapsing bridges, jump to another level and destroy things. With that you can do a duel like Anakin vs, Obi-van. Narratively suddenly they have fight themselves to a pipe, activated the fire distinguishers, jumped on a heave machinery, kicked the opponent outside etc)

Hide: In the next Duel slot, the participants roll Perception vs. Stealth of the hidden character. If the hidden character wins, cancel that duel slot. If he wins a second test in the next duel slot, he may choose to break the duel and immediately perform two maneuvers.

(-> Remember RotJ? That´s the inspiration for that move. You should use the cancelled Duel slot to Roleplay. Tactically it can buy you some time, if you are needing it)

Rising Darkness/ Triumphing Light: Flip a z or a Z without further effects.

(-> Something dark or triumphing happens, the whole duel gets scarier or hope glimmers. Tactically it can take a Destiny point from the opponents and give it to you)

Get a s

(-> simple as that)

Use a Force Power.

(-> Know why the Jedis don´t use their powers all the time in duels such as Force Throw? That´s the reason . With that maneuver the power only comes up when you have enough advantage. Suddenly the moment presents itself. That should simulate the movie feel of Jedis using the powers in rare cases during duels)

aaa or x

High Ground (not necessary literally): Upgrade the difficulty of the duel check of the opponent once or downgrade your difficulty. This stays that way until the difficulty is changed again.

(-> Use it narratively like "Changing environment, with the difference, that the fight has changed in a way that benefits this character greatly. Maybe he is standing on High ground and the other one on a floating Droid below him, maybe the character has kicked the opponent on a deadly machinery or got him at a cliff)

Weak spot: Make an appropriate (i.e. deception) roll vs. The discipline of the opponent. If the opponent loses, he gains 2 Conflict.

(-> For talking. Speak to his conscience or make him angry. Time for RP personal stuff. And try to rescue/ condemn your opponent)

Break the duel: The Duel stops, the character may immediately perform two maneuvers.

(for escaping)

Use a talent.

(-> Same as Force power)

Deperate Parry: Deny your opponent the attacks this round. He can however keep the s and use them next turn

(-> That´ll buy some time. It will also raise the tension. Because in the next round, it can be that he´ll have you.)

A moment to talk. Cancel the next Duel check and play a short exchange. You can use this moment to convince or bargain with the opponent. If you want, roll an appropriate social check. If you win, upgrade the difficulty of your next opponent check once.

(Duelists pause to talk in adventure duels, Now it´s time for a bitter conversation. I included the mechanical part to bait players to do this maneuver, so they can not only win time,but also have an effect. This will give memorable scenes I hope)

Pass-by-blow: Attack a Character in Close range who is not part of the duel. You don´t have to be engaged with him to attack him that way.

(-> I included that so the Duelist have an option to attack characters not in that duel, so it is not used to lock the opponent and attack him while he can´t fight back. The reason that he hasn´t to be engaged is a mechanical one. He can´t technically engage while he fights the duel, additionally the duel is thought on moving all the time.

x

Masterstroke: Inflict a critical hit to the enemy (without doing any further damage).

(-> That can be fun, suddenly the opponent is blinded or looses his hand. It is also the third tactic to defeat your opponent. It simulates the sudden hurts and tense woundings you can see in adventure movies)

Opening: Downgrade your difficulty on the next duel check twice

(-> I´ll stop here, because I think you got the idea)

I will not fight you/ strike me down: Offer your opponent to downgrade his difficulty. If he takes the offer, he gains 1-3 Conflict, your choice.

“If you will not turn to the Dark Side... then perhaps she will...”:

Bestow b and give your opponent 1 Conflict or let him suffer 2 Strain

Threats and Despair

t

Stress: Suffer 1 Strain

Get b on the next check or give g b to the opponent for the next check.

tt

Conflicting thoughts: Get 1 Conflict.

Cancel s from your check.

Changed surroundings (either through a move and chase or by destroying something): upgrade or degrade the Duel difficulty for both participants. GMs choice. This stays that way until the difficulty is changed again.

Get 1 wound.

ttt

Collateral damage: A significant damage, that changes the situation completely. Shield control is destroyed, vehicle goes down, fire breaks out. Best choice is one which gives the duel a deadline.

False step: Make an Perception check ddd If you fail, the opponent is allowed to attack as if he has scored against your CUNNING.

Defensive: Make a Athlethics check ddd . If you loose, you aren´t allowed to score s on the next Duel check, although you roll and cancel your opponents s normally.

y

"What have you become?" Opponent rolls charm, deception or Leadership against (-). For every a he can lower your Conflict to a minimum of 1.

Lose all s you have scored on the opponent before this check is resolved. Only when you have scores on your opponent.

Dividing: Duel is broken, both character are in Close distance now. If something like fallen debris can divide them more, the GM can decide to do that.

Didn´t see that coming: Suffer 3 Strain.

More than one Duelist

Several opponents may enter the duel, however they must obey the 3 rules above (i.e. being Nemesis Tier or PC). If a duel cannot be started, resolve the melee attack normally.

Fighting against multiple opponents: If several opponents fight each other, the side with more participants gains b and upgrades the difficulty of the duelling check of the enemy team by one for every member they have in excess to the number of the enemy team.

The participant with the most s is the only one who can score. He must choose against which opponents he scores, he can divide the s between multiple opponents.

Not to belittle your work but have you had the opportunity to check out the Showdown rules in Fly Casual? It can be easily adapted for lightsaber duels as well.

Granted I've not gone through these in fine detail, but a lot of that seems to do with putting in a huge amount of mechanical effort for little to no real gain in terms of the story.

I know it's been repeated ad nausem on these forums, by FFG's Star Wars RPG is first and foremost a narrative RPG, where the story and the descriptions of the player's actions are more important than the mechanics behind those actions. And for some gamers, being weaned on more structure-based RPGs like D&D, that's not an easy thing to fully accept or even get used to. I'm pretty much chugging the Kool-Aid where this game is concerned, and even I have trouble not slipping into the classic "tactical combat" mindset that 20+ years of D&D and similar games have imprinted into my thoughts when playing this game or engaging in combats with my various saber-wielding characters.

However, also remember that while the default for a round of combat is suggested to be one minute, nothing is stopping the GM from stretching that out to be two to three minutes or even longer. Some time back, Desslok posted an excellent example of how the Duel on Bespin between Luke and Vader really only took a few combat rounds in this system, with only a couple of exchanged combat checks between the two in terms of dice rolls at each stage (freezing chamber, chamber in front of that huge window, and finally the catwalk/podium over a huge pit), and with Vader probably making Coercion checks opposed by Luke's Discipline to break the boy's will (i.e. inflict strain to push Luke up over his strain threshold). What you see in the film is simply the descriptive window dressing for what many fans consider to be one of the most dramatic lightsaber duels in the franchise.

So I'm probably not the target audience for something like this, which is perfectly fine. But if you've not done so already, try running a lightsaber fight using rules as-is, but encouraging the participants to give cool narrative descriptions of their actions, and then reinforcing the really good ones with a boost die to the PC's attack roll.

Not to belittle your work but have you had the opportunity to check out the Showdown rules in Fly Casual? It can be easily adapted for lightsaber duels as well.

I read them as you told me that in the Lightsaber duels threat and read them. In my opinion they are fabulous for western style showdowns, especially with the emphasis on who draws first, but for duels like Luke vs. Vader, I don´t find them very suitable.

But don´t hold back. It´s not a dimnishing of the work.

Granted I've not gone through these in fine detail, but a lot of that seems to do with putting in a huge amount of mechanical effort for little to no real gain in terms of the story.

I know it's been repeated ad nausem on these forums, by FFG's Star Wars RPG is first and foremost a narrative RPG, where the story and the descriptions of the player's actions are more important than the mechanics behind those actions. And for some gamers, being weaned on more structure-based RPGs like D&D, that's not an easy thing to fully accept or even get used to. I'm pretty much chugging the Kool-Aid where this game is concerned, and even I have trouble not slipping into the classic "tactical combat" mindset that 20+ years of D&D and similar games have imprinted into my thoughts when playing this game or engaging in combats with my various saber-wielding characters.

However, also remember that while the default for a round of combat is suggested to be one minute, nothing is stopping the GM from stretching that out to be two to three minutes or even longer. Some time back, Desslok posted an excellent example of how the Duel on Bespin between Luke and Vader really only took a few combat rounds in this system, with only a couple of exchanged combat checks between the two in terms of dice rolls at each stage (freezing chamber, chamber in front of that huge window, and finally the catwalk/podium over a huge pit), and with Vader probably making Coercion checks opposed by Luke's Discipline to break the boy's will (i.e. inflict strain to push Luke up over his strain threshold). What you see in the film is simply the descriptive window dressing for what many fans consider to be one of the most dramatic lightsaber duels in the franchise.

So I'm probably not the target audience for something like this, which is perfectly fine. But if you've not done so already, try running a lightsaber fight using rules as-is, but encouraging the participants to give cool narrative descriptions of their actions, and then reinforcing the really good ones with a boost die to the PC's attack roll.

Understand that notion.

But I´ve tried to give reflexible narrative-mechanics to reflect that. You can tell the fights longer with the vanilla rules, but in reality, I see only hitting in the rules and deflecting. I tried to include maneuvers for talking, for seducing and for fighting through a whole station or planet. With i.e. "Change surroundings", the duel can be told like the fight between Obi van and Anakin, fighting from a station to the bridge outside to the planet below. With "Weak spot" you have a reason to taunt and seduce, because you won´t do that in combat, a hit is far more effective then sacrifizing your action to get the opponent a minus boost or so.

Between that, they will taunt, seduce and distract the opponent, hide and seek. I tried to make the duels more narratively to get more tense and less about hit-deflect-hit back. These rules try to gain that and take advantage of the narrative rules.

I´m not fond of simulist rules, either.

I´ve included some thought about reason and how they could improve the game in italics , to give you a better idea how I think this could work andd why it can be good to use them.

Long drawn out duels are kind of anathema to the style of rpg groups as they tend to try to take out the big baddy as quickly and efficiently as possible. I'm not sure such a system would see much use except by the most dedicated of role-players. It is why I like the use of the Showdown rules. You get the build up of two people facing off without it being drawn out. And as to the fight there is already so much that can contribute to it. This game is already so narrative.

• Charm, Coercion and Deception can already be used to great effect, especially when boosted by the Influence power. I could even see uses for Perception and Knowledge (Lore) and other skills.
• Not only that but the use of skills in combat generate advantages/threat and such which can be spent to adjust things as per the Spending tables.
• Many talents are already so useful in combat be they for inflicting strain, recovering it, avoiding or reducing damage, and so on. And we have a whole spec dedicated to dueling.
• Powers are a incredible resource. With imaginative and innovative use they can be used to great effect.
• Influence was already mentioned in its ability to augment interpersonal skills.
• Misdirect could be used to great effect.
• Enhance for its obviously physical enhancements.
• Move is an interesting one. Many people always look at how much damage it can inflict. I like it when players use it more for just the movement effect. Getting an opponent farther away from you so they can't use their glowstick on you. It could come down to a duel of pulling and repelling.
• Sense is another good one. With the Control upgrade of reading surface thoughts I allow for a player character to make a Sense power check and spend the result as advantage on the Spending Advantage in Combat table in relation to their opponent (or more if approriate).
• And keep in mind that doing many of these things, especially skill checks and Force actions, is in place of an attack. So if you want to extend a duel this will already do it.

This game already offers so many more options than just swing hit/miss without adding a new subsystem in my book that I just don't see the need. But please let me know how it goes for your group.

Long drawn out duels are kind of anathema to the style of rpg groups as they tend to try to take out the big baddy as quickly and efficiently as possible. I'm not sure such a system would see much use except by the most dedicated of role-players. It is why I like the use of the Showdown rules. You get the build up of two people facing off without it being drawn out. And as to the fight there is already so much that can contribute to it. This game is already so narrative.

• Charm, Coercion and Deception can already be used to great effect, especially when boosted by the Influence power. I could even see uses for Perception and Knowledge (Lore) and other skills.
• Not only that but the use of skills in combat generate advantages/threat and such which can be spent to adjust things as per the Spending tables.
• Many talents are already so useful in combat be they for inflicting strain, recovering it, avoiding or reducing damage, and so on. And we have a whole spec dedicated to dueling.
• Powers are a incredible resource. With imaginative and innovative use they can be used to great effect.
• Influence was already mentioned in its ability to augment interpersonal skills.
• Misdirect could be used to great effect.
• Enhance for its obviously physical enhancements.
• Move is an interesting one. Many people always look at how much damage it can inflict. I like it when players use it more for just the movement effect. Getting an opponent farther away from you so they can't use their glowstick on you. It could come down to a duel of pulling and repelling.
• Sense is another good one. With the Control upgrade of reading surface thoughts I allow for a player character to make a Sense power check and spend the result as advantage on the Spending Advantage in Combat table in relation to their opponent (or more if approriate).
• And keep in mind that doing many of these things, especially skill checks and Force actions, is in place of an attack. So if you want to extend a duel this will already do it.

This game already offers so many more options than just swing hit/miss without adding a new subsystem in my book that I just don't see the need. But please let me know how it goes for your group.

I will keep you informed. I will play a few duels outside the sessions to test these rules. When I´m not to lazy, maybe I´ll do a write up.

It also depends heavily much of the game you are playing. EotE style you don´t need that at all. And in Knight-level Jedi campaigns this may be triggered far to often. I.e. in my universe, there are only 3 (+1 hidden) Force users at all. Emperor Skywalker, his apprentice and the PC who plays Leia´s daughter. So I do get that this rules are mostly suited for Episode IV-VI style "classic" Star Wars Heroes Journey stuff.

I have written them for use by non-force power users too, but also it is intended for finale stand-offs.

And they are also written to used only in rare cases. The three rules posted above try to accomplish that these rules are only triggered when there´s a stand-off between the hero and the villain for a movie style finale fight. I thought about requiring the Defender to flip a DP as a fourth rule to make them even more rare, but I´m not finished thinking about that.

Besides you don´t needing that, which I understand very well, I´m also interested in your thoughts about making that system better. I.e. if some duel maneuvers should be cheaper/ more expansive. If you got something about that, that would be very appreciated. Many brains are mostly better than one.

EDIT: Oh, another idea hits my head, Mouthymerc.

Maybe you just scrap my rules and considering usinng some of the maneuvers that are not directly tied to the duel mechanic (the most of them) and give them as additional option in using threats and advantages in your duel system, so you can i.e. give player a player conflict or use other stuff. What about that?

• There are already skills, talents and spending threat for inflicting strain. I would be careful about making it too easy by making it something you can spend advantage on. It may discount the other abilities.
• Conflict will arise through the use of Force powers and some talents if done properly. Not sure you need another option there. Again you do not want to dilute such a result too much like with the above strain.
• Much of what you done (again not discounting your work) seems redundant with what is already available.
• It really seems to come down to an agreement between the GM and player: "Do you want to have a duel?"

This may work well for your group, but I think there needs to be some tacit agreement between GM and players. I'm not sure many groups would find it terribly useful given the already available various options. For the groups that would have a grand duel, they can already do so.

Have a different view on that, but that does not really matter, as with all homebrew stuff, anyone can chose to use it or not. I don´t know if it works either as long as I don´t have tested it myself, so we´ll see.

Thanks for your thoughts so far.

My mostly burning interest are improvements and ideas for this system. Looking forward for contributions.

I like the idea, and a lot of the things you've worked in, but a lot of it feels complicated. I know if I tried to hand these rules to the people in my group, they would get about a paragraph in, roll their eyes, and toss it aside (to be fair, that's as much of an indictment against my players as it is the rules). My suggestion would be to keep a lot of those non-combat options, like "what have you become," and declare that in a "duel," every other round is a non-combat round. Narratively, the characters may still be lightsabering it up, but the dice rolls are about their witty banter or melodramatic angst.

I know the folks at the Order 66 Podcast at d20 Radio sketched out some dueling rules before the F&D beta came out. It would still be decent as a rough framework, with perks for social rolls and such.

If you are looking for Epic Duels which I'm guessing is a lot of back and fourth rolling where the outcome hangs in that balance longer, I'd suggest ignoring ranks of Adversary and using Opposed rolls instead. Combat will likely last longer and generate more Advantage/Threat and Triumph/Despair to help describe the scene. It's simple and requires no special rules while taking into account the actual Skills of each opponent with every roll (you can even have each other roll the negative dice for a more tense feel).

If you are looking for Epic Duels which I'm guessing is a lot of back and fourth rolling where the outcome hangs in that balance longer, I'd suggest ignoring ranks of Adversary and using Opposed rolls instead. Combat will likely last longer and generate more Advantage/Threat and Triumph/Despair to help describe the scene. It's simple and requires no special rules while taking into account the actual Skills of each opponent with every roll (you can even have each other roll the negative dice for a more tense feel).

Much as I'm not a fan of opposed combat checks, this is probably the simplest solution to the OP's dilemma.

Thinking back to a 'saber fight a PC of mine was in not too long ago, my opponent was an ISB Agent with a lightfoil that had Adversary 2, Brawn 3, 3 ranks in Lightsaber, Melee Defense 2, and Parry 5 (GM showed me the stats after the battle). The fight was over in two rounds, but that was by and large due to my scoring a freaking monstrous critical injury (had a +70 on the roll from a single prior crit and the sheer pile of Advantages I generated thanks to boost dice from other PCs) that resulted in an insta-kill hit when quite honestly the fight probably should have gone on a bit longer, even with my using a lightsaber that was Damage 9/Crit 1 (Ilum crystal, 2 mods for damage and hilt customization) since the ISB Agent was built using the Inquisitor rules (just with one less point in Adversary).

Now admittedly this wasn't a proper one-on-one duel, as it took place as part of a larger combat encounter; my PC was simply the first one to parkour his way to the ISB Agent that everyone in the party wanted a piece of for his part in murdering a fellow PC several sessions prior. But had this been meant to be a proper "duel," then perhaps FuriousGreg's idea of making it opposed checks would have helped draw things out... baring incredibly lucky rolls of course.

You all made some interesting points.

A thing I don´t want to let go off are the movement/ enviroment stuff additionally to the social stuff. First I wanna give the PC a chance to choose how social it´s gonna be, second one of my complaints was the epic going around changing/ destroying, jumping/ falling back stuff additionally to the social mechanics. I want not only longer, but also more dramatic duels.

So I put your suggestions in a pile and thought about it. And your criticism has sparked some ideas to streamline the rules greatly. Thanks so far, guys!

This is what I came up with:

1) I keep the three rules of how a duel can be started and how it can end, so it comes only in the appropriate situations.

2) I throw away the stuff about hitting your opponent when it´s not your turn.

3) I throw away the chase/ scoring stuff. I replace it with "normal" opposed checks.

4) I keep the whole table, so stuff like "changing the enviroment" and "high ground" would refer to the difficulty dice you´re getting from the opponent (so you have a chance to get to someone who is superior by upgrading his difficulty or downgrading yours).

So basically, I throw away the core rules. Keeping the beginning and the end.

As long the duel last, both participants can only use the full round action “Duel” in their initiative slot, they cannot use maneuvers or other actions, that they haven´t gained through the “Duel actions”. Regardless who the Attacker and who the Defender is, all participants can potentially do damage, even it is not their turn.

If one participant uses the “Duel” action, all participants roll a combat roll against a certain difficulty. The difficulty can be modified due to the circumstances (it would be harder to fight while balancing on a pipe over a lava pit), default is dd . Adversary does not apply, as does other talents. They can be used if a participant lands an attack (see below).

After all participants have rolled, they compare the s against each other. The participant with most s scores them against his enemy. If he collects more s than the CUNNING of his enemy, he removes a number of s scores equal to the CUNNING of his enemy and makes a regular attack against his enemy. If he i.e. doubles the CUNNING, he would get two attacks. These attacks will be resolved normally, offensive and defensive talents, such as i.e. Adversary or Reflect can be used

If a participant wins and his opponent had scored s on him, he first cancels these s before he scores netto s against the opponent (like in a chase).

The attacker in the duel makes an opposed check in the combat ability vs. his opponent instead of rolling against the standart difficulty.

What do you think of that?

It's an improvement.

However, still not sold on loosing the free maneuver, since that can be used not only to shift location, either by disengaging to withdraw to a more strategic location (such as Obi-Wan claiming the high ground in RotS in his fight with Anakin) or simply to draw your foe into a more dangerous location (Darth Maul's tactic in TPM), generally forcing your opponent to spend their maneuver to play catch up if they want to smack you with their lightsaber.

I'd also be hesitant to allow Advantages to spent spent to gain successes, especially on a 1-to-1 basis, even if doing so generates Conflict. At least based upon how Morality worked in the Beta, a PC that's not earned any Conflict at all that session could very easily decide to accept a few points of Conflict and spend that Advantage to turn a failed combat check into a successful one or pile on the successes to really hammer down their opponent.

Truthfully, a lot of the suggestions for Advantages are pretty potent in contrast to the suggestions offered in the combat chapter of each corebook, or may just simply be better handled through narrative as an explanation for that boost die you got from spending 2 Advantage.

Masterstroke frankly seems pretty lame, given that getting most lightsabers down to a Crit value of 1 is going to be one of the earliest mods a PC makes.

It's an improvement.

However, still not sold on loosing the free maneuver, since that can be used not only to shift location, either by disengaging to withdraw to a more strategic location (such as Obi-Wan claiming the high ground in RotS in his fight with Anakin) or simply to draw your foe into a more dangerous location (Darth Maul's tactic in TPM), generally forcing your opponent to spend their maneuver to play catch up if they want to smack you with their lightsaber.

I'd also be hesitant to allow Advantages to spent spent to gain successes, especially on a 1-to-1 basis, even if doing so generates Conflict. At least based upon how Morality worked in the Beta, a PC that's not earned any Conflict at all that session could very easily decide to accept a few points of Conflict and spend that Advantage to turn a failed combat check into a successful one or pile on the successes to really hammer down their opponent.

Truthfully, a lot of the suggestions for Advantages are pretty potent in contrast to the suggestions offered in the combat chapter of each corebook, or may just simply be better handled through narrative as an explanation for that boost die you got from spending 2 Advantage.

Masterstroke frankly seems pretty lame, given that getting most lightsabers down to a Crit value of 1 is going to be one of the earliest mods a PC makes.

Yeah, the table must be corrected to fit the new ideas. Masterstroke only makes sense, if you have to score to even allowed to hit first. With the "new" rules, that would not make much sense.

Same with the success, in the old rules allowed a success to be got in a 2-1 basis for the duel check, which was dispatched for the attack itself. If you dump the duel check, it would certainly not make sense anymore.

For the movement/ maneuver options: I´ll try to sell you om that.

The idea is to handle exactly that in an abstract way (I even used Obi vans quote in the appropriate advantage bonus calling it "High Ground"). The idea is not to discourage, rather than to encourage movement in a duel. The runnings, dodgings, using in a better position are used through these Advantage bonuses. The advantage of that would be, that you have the option to use the narrative mechanic to make the duel epic to draw inspriation, rather than simply to move. To give an additional encouragement to use that, you´ll getting a mechanical benefit. So, rather than knowing what is where and why, you can improvise it cinematic style.

As an example: 2 Jedis fighting on a bridge. So, Jedi A sees, that Jedi B rarely breaks his defenses. He has 2 advantages to spare, so he decides to use "change enviroment", so that he can upgrade the difficulty of them both. That makes it harder for him to hit as well, but he calculated that he´ll land some weak hits while his opponent doesn´t get any.

Narratively, Jedi A jumps down from the bridge, followed by Jedi B (the duel move one range band). They land between dangerous crackling power converters, fighting between dangerous electrical beams.

Jedi B is fed up with not hitting anything, while getting a hit, and decides to change that. With his 2 advantages, he changes enviroment again degrading both difficulties. Narratively, he hits on the pass by the main power conduit, and the flashes die...

Honestly, I'm the type of GM that I'd just hand out a boost die for a good narrative description of how the PC is using the terrain to their advantage by moving about, if not just simply chalking it up to the Aim maneuver if they PC isn't actually chanting their range band or disengaging from the target.

At this point, I'm going to bow out of the discussion. We're of two different minds on the need for additional rules regarding dueling, so not seeing a need to debate in circles on the matter, as I'm sure we've each got better things to do.

Honestly, I'm the type of GM that I'd just hand out a boost die for a good narrative description of how the PC is using the terrain to their advantage by moving about, if not just simply chalking it up to the Aim maneuver if they PC isn't actually chanting their range band or disengaging from the target.

At this point, I'm going to bow out of the discussion. We're of two different minds on the need for additional rules regarding dueling, so not seeing a need to debate in circles on the matter, as I'm sure we've each got better things to do.

I would not say "better", but as you can see, debating with you, even if it was clear in the beginning that you aren´t interested in these rules, has greatly spawned new ideas, so I´m thankful.

Till next time, then.

Personally, I would prefer using opposed lightsaber checks to resolve duels. Conceptually, I think it would allow more flexibility in the dice interpretation, especially if one or both dueling parties has goals other than "Kill my opponent," e.g. Vader's not really trying to kill Luke on Bespin, but wear him down to where he can be captured and taken to the Emperor.

As mentioned above, large codified rules sets tend to be anathema to the narrative style of play supported by FFG's Star Wars system, but it's not like they're unprecedented *cough*vehiclecombat*cough* (though in all fairness, none of half dozen other SWRPG games have done this either).

I don't have them in front of me, I don't own the game, but WHFRP3rd (also by FFG) has an interesting additional Combat feature called Conservative and Reckless stances which changes the type of dice you use in opposed combat rolls. Below is a link to a game aid that gives some info but you'll need access to a full rules set to get all of it.

Basically you adopt a progressively committed Offensive (Reckless) or Defensive (Conservative) stance that chooses what type of dice you roll. Reckless dice are basically a version of skill dice but with higher positive results mixed with a good chance of a heavy negative results (Imagine a FFGSW yellow die with more double Successes but an added Despair and Threats). Conservative dice have no negative results but lower level positive (Basic Green die).

You could add something like this if you wanted by using Opposing rolls but allow PCs and NPCs to take a stance (not the same as any Talents with that name). I'm not sure how it would work right off the bat as the systems are only similar but still quite different. In any case it's worth exploring.

http://www.orderofgamers.com/downloads/WFRP3_v2.pdf

WHFRP3rd (also by FFG) has an interesting additional Combat feature called Conservative and Reckless stances which changes the type of dice you use in opposed combat rolls.

You could incorporate some limitation on how adv is spent based on stance, which would be declared a priori to the roll like in WHF, but then you run into the "limitations aren't what the narrative system is about" complaint.

While I like the aggressive/conservative stance system WHF for all of it's combat checks (not just the opposed rolls), I'm of the opinion that it may not work well in this application and I personally would avoid placing any additional rules on how the results of the rolls are interpreted. YMMV.

WHFRP3rd (also by FFG) has an interesting additional Combat feature called Conservative and Reckless stances which changes the type of dice you use in opposed combat rolls.

You could incorporate some limitation on how adv is spent based on stance, which would be declared a priori to the roll like in WHF, but then you run into the "limitations aren't what the narrative system is about" complaint.

While I like the aggressive/conservative stance system WHF for all of it's combat checks (not just the opposed rolls), I'm of the opinion that it may not work well in this application and I personally would avoid placing any additional rules on how the results of the rolls are interpreted. YMMV.

I'm not sure either how it would work as well as there being no Reckless type die in SW (though you could add Boosts and Setbacks) and I certainly wouldn't recommend it for combat in general, but if there was a way to adapt it specifically for epic duels it potentially could add some flavour.

In any case I think when it does come up, it is their destiny after all, I'll try using Opposing rolls and see how it plays out.

If one is going with a "stance" approach to enhance the idea of a duel, I recall coming across a series of house rules for the WEG Star Wars, with modified the number of d6s in your Lightsaber skill pool for that round as well as the difficulty for your opponent to hit you.

Things like a Guarded Stance already exist, but you could probably add maneuvers like Offensive Stance (upgrade your check once, but opponent gets to upgrade to hit you on their next attack) and Aggressive Stance (upgrade your check once, but suffer 2 Conflict for drawing upon anger/aggression).

If one is going with a "stance" approach to enhance the idea of a duel, I recall coming across a series of house rules for the WEG Star Wars, with modified the number of d6s in your Lightsaber skill pool for that round as well as the difficulty for your opponent to hit you.

Things like a Guarded Stance already exist, but you could probably add maneuvers like Offensive Stance (upgrade your check once, but opponent gets to upgrade to hit you on their next attack) and Aggressive Stance (upgrade your check once, but suffer 2 Conflict for drawing upon anger/aggression).

I don't think those were house rules. If you were wielding a 'saber in WEG 2nd ed R&R, your lightsaber skill was your defensive skill (core rulebook, pg 90: "You use the Lightsaber skill (or Dexerity attribute) to get out of the way or block the attack.")

The CSA sourcebook actually had cool quick-draw gun-fighting showdown rules that could be adapted here. For the showdown, each player a priori separated their blaster skill into two pools: one for quickdraw, one for accuracy. You would roll quickdraw first, and whoever won shot first using the remaining accuracy dice.

To adapt this, you would have to a priori separate your skill into attack and defense, or somehow potentially upgrade your check difficulty for more aggression/offense/etc, but after that it'd be pretty straight-forward.

Yea it's a tough proposal to add much granularity to duelling with this system, it's really all in the descriptions of Advantages and such. It's sometimes hard to remember that even if one opponent uses a Force Attack rather than a Lightsabre Attack they are still swinging their LS (blocking and such) and moving about in the scene.

You could along with Opposed rolls also allow for "pre" Skill rolls such as Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception etc to set up Attack rolls and use generated Advantages to affect to the Attack roll and help describe the attacks (this would require allowing a Skill roll as a Maneuver rather than an action). For example:

The PC wants to use a Feint so you have them spend a Maneuver to roll their Deception vs X. You ignore strait Success or Failure but any Advantages/Threats/Triumph/Despair are applied to the following Attack roll (adding Boost/Setback and/or Upgrading/Downgrading dice). It's would add a little complexity but for a special Duel it would certainly add great narrative possibilities.