Hi folks

I'll start this by saying I've not read the beta book and of course we haven't seen the core rulebook yet, so I don't know if lightsaber duels are presented differently to conventional melee, but given that I'll be GMing F&D when it comes out, I've been thinking about lightsaber duels. The difficulty to hit in melee is two purple dice, which to my mind, doesn't lend itself well to an epic-feeling slugfest between hyper-focused, lightsaber-wielding, toe-to-toe Force users going at it hell for leather. Do you think it would be feasible (and more dramatically appropriate) to have an attacker's melee combat difficulty be their opponent's lighsaber skill rating (in other words, an opposed roll) rather than the normal two-dice difficulty? And would it upset anything rules-wise for me to make this a house rule?

Cheers

Pac_Man3D

The saber form specs do have a variety of talents to parry damage, increase defense, and so on to make melee combat more complex than that which is presented in the previous two core rule books.

The big thing introduced for Lightsabers in FaD is the Parry and Reflect talents. For each, if you have a lightsaber (or Melee weapon if you're brawling), you can spend 3 Strain to trigger each talent's effect for a single successful hit. The base effects for the talents are that it reduces base damage of a weapon's hit by 2+ranks. And then there's Improved versions where you can get a free attack in if the attacker rolled 3 Threat or a Despair, and a Supreme version where if you didn't attack, then your uses for the next round only cost 1 Strain. So this causes lightsaber fights to be lethal since it kind of becomes about Advantage allocation to try either go for Lethal Crits or to use some to recover Strain so you can last longer.

So by making it opposed checks, I don't think you'd necessarily break anything, but it'd probably shift how things worked. There'd be less successful hits (before Parry), less Success/Advantage rolled each attack, and these could drag the fight out a lot longer. But at the same time, less Advantage means less strain recovery, so it'd be more likely that somebody runs out of Strain to use before the fight ends, at which point it's just about bashing the enemy down.

I'd personally just recommend leaving the rules as is, just using Parry and Reflect. Particularly since if a player goes up against somebody with Adversary, they need to attempt to tackle opposed checks that are upgraded multiple times, and at that point even if they min-max'ed, they'd still just be swinging and missing nearly every time. Not to mention the odds of Despairs everywhere.

This topic has been beaten to death way too many times...

Any old-school members from F&D Beta is gonna say that doing opposed check makes the base skill too good. If you want to be a good Lightsaber fighter, you need the talents like parry and reflect, with improved and supreme versions if you can. Those talents are what will make longer fights, fights more cinematic... If you grant LS combat the advantage of opposed checks, then you "nerf" brawl, melee and ranged combat... You could also argue the same about space combat.... This overhaul of the rules is not needed nor wished. Try the rules the way they are and see for yourself... the talents are what will make Force Users shine, not the base skill rating in Lightsaber Combat.

There are a couple of threads on this but it is something that is useful to work out for those that want something like it.

Opposed rolls work but I would limit them to those epic duels against named NPCs in place of Adversary and not use it in regular combat.

The saber form specs do have a variety of talents to parry damage, increase defense, and so on to make melee combat more complex than that which is presented in the previous two core rule books.

This is the crux of it. Parry and such will allow saber fights to last longer. It'll still go fast, but not the 1-hit-you're-dead fast it does like in the unskilled baseball swinging of EotE or AoR.

Though it's worth mentioning, the reason most lightsaber fights are "epic" has little to do with the two guys banging their hotdogs together over and over again and everything with all the other stuff they do in the process.

Obi-wan vs. Anakin was epic because they were forcing out, and leaping everywhere, and fighting while swinging from cables because the floor was lava.

Obi-wan v.s Vader.... yeah, not so epic....

So, you want your saber duel to be epic, you'd better do it in an exotic location and have the Opponent take actions that encourage or require the player to do more then say "uh... I hit him with my saber?"

So how about Parry vs. a training saber or Reflect vs. a blaster set to stun?

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I agree with Greg about limiting their use and I agree with Ghostofman in principle (I'd argue that Anakin vs Obi-Wan was considerably less epic than, say, Vader vs Luke - though the former probably lends itself better to creating a sense of epic within a tabletop rpg). I'm interested to see how the rulebook spruces up lightsaber combat (thanks for some of the highlights there, Lathrop). And with JP_JP and "beaten to death" topics in mind, I understand that lightsaber damage has been turned down a bit - what are your thoughts on that, folks? I quite like the severity of the EotE saber.

I understand that lightsaber damage has been turned down a bit - what are your thoughts on that, folks? I quite like the severity of the EotE saber.

You can still get your saber up to the levels of the Edge/Age sabers, but those are no longer the baseline stats for the typical saber. I'm OK with this as it allows the weapon room to grow with the character.

So how about Parry vs. a training saber or Reflect vs. a blaster set to stun?

Ya had to go there didn't you?

. And with JP_JP and "beaten to death" topics in mind, I understand that lightsaber damage has been turned down a bit - what are your thoughts on that, folks? I quite like the severity of the EotE saber.

No biggy when you keep it in context. AoR and EotE didn't have a lightsaber skill or talent trees, so that monster was supposed to mate with the untrained flailing of an emergent rolling 2 or 3 ability dice. Yeah it was a beast, but you could hardly ever hit with it unless you min/maxed a marauder to do so.

The reduced damage on the "new" saber (the ones in AoR/EotE represent fully modded ones) isn't huge when you factor in that you can also do things like not only get the skill, but pick your favorite ability to base it off of. 4 points of damage "lost" in exchange for your Int 4 know it all being able to swing a saber as well as the Brawn 4 Sith Thug is not a bad trade off if you think about it.

And as others mentioned, you can still get your saber up to AoR/EotE power with some luck and effort... assuming you don't decide one of the other new options is better.

So how about Parry vs. a training saber or Reflect vs. a blaster set to stun?

Reflect works perfectly fine against stun bolts. Ashoka did it in TCW, after all. And there is nothing to say a trainin saber can't Parry. Training sabers are just a variant of a standard lightsaber, and is still considered a Lightsaber weapon. Lightsaber weapons are one of the requisites of the Parry talent, so it works unless the GM rules otherwise.

-EF

[...] I understand that lightsaber damage has been turned down a bit - what are your thoughts on that, folks? I quite like the severity of the EotE saber.

The 'base lightsaber' described in the F&D beta isn't the 'base lightsaber' described in EotE. The former costs less than a grand (I think, don't have the bet right now) and the latter costs 10k. I recall that you can create the base EotE saber for basically the same cost using the appropriate gem.

Plus practically every gem still has the breach quality, and I think they still have crazy low crit scores. I can't recall if they're still Vicious or not.

Plus every career has a spec that is heavily combat focused.

Basically, A + B + C = Lightsaber damage is still gonna be nuts.

EdritchFire is correct. If I allow canon to be my guide, Reflect works on Stun bolts, but not improved reflect.

So how about Parry vs. a training saber or Reflect vs. a blaster set to stun?

Reflect works perfectly fine against stun bolts. Ashoka did it in TCW, after all. And there is nothing to say a trainin saber can't Parry. Training sabers are just a variant of a standard lightsaber, and is still considered a Lightsaber weapon. Lightsaber weapons are one of the requisites of the Parry talent, so it works unless the GM rules otherwise.

-EF

EdritchFire is correct. If I allow canon to be my guide, Reflect works on Stun bolts, but not improved reflect.

I think he's talking about how Parrying a training saber (or other stun based melee weapon) or Reflecting stun bolts (or other reflectable stun based ranged attack) need more then 1 rank of said talent to be economical, and 3+ to really start to pay off.

Just fact checked my earlier post. By my quick math a basic hilt with a fully modded Ilum crystal will match the EotE "base lightsaber" stats: 10 damage (6 base + 4 dmg mods), Crit 1 (2 base - 1 crit mod), vicious 2 (0 base + 2 mods), breach 1 and sunder.

Cost is also identical: hilt (300) + crystal (9,000) + 7 mods (700) = 10,000

The new cost is slightly higher: hilt (300) + crystal (9,000) + 7 mods (2,800) = 11,800

This also leaves 3 hard points for the lightsaber to be modded, where previously there were zero. Now, you still have to roll to mod the thing, but the errata drops the difficulty when you're doing it to your own weapon by two levels and lets you add your freaking force rating into the roll...

And every force using career has a dedicated combat spec giving lightsaber combatants access to way more power than anything in the previous games.

I don't understand why people think the 'sabers got "tuned down", given the... what do you call them? ah yes...

Facts.

Edit: forgot mods cost 100 + 100(mods already installed) instead of a flat 100/per.

I don't understand why people think the 'sabers got "tuned down", given the... what do you call them? ah yes...

...crystal polish.

Also the thing to remember - even the epic lightsaber fights don't last very long at all. I don't know where the thread is, but I did a breakdown of the Bespin fight. The thing lasted 5 or 6 turns, depending on how you narrated it. The Massive Dice Rolling Marathon Slugfests of old don't really work here.

Make the story epic, not the pile of dice.

*** EDIT ***

Yeah, here we go: I found the thread ! And I was mis-remembering. It wasn't 5 or 6 turns, it was 4.

Also the thing to remember - even the epic lightsaber fights don't last very long at all. I don't know where the thread is, but I did a breakdown of the Bespin fight. The thing lasted 5 or 6 turns, depending on how you narrated it. The Massive Dice Rolling Marathon Slugfests of old don't really work here.

Make the story epic, not the pile of dice.

*** EDIT ***

Yeah, here we go: I found the thread ! And I was mis-remembering. It wasn't 5 or 6 turns, it was 4.

Agreed. After all, this isn't Exalted...

Also the thing to remember - even the epic lightsaber fights don't last very long at all. I don't know where the thread is, but I did a breakdown of the Bespin fight. The thing lasted 5 or 6 turns, depending on how you narrated it. The Massive Dice Rolling Marathon Slugfests of old don't really work here.

Make the story epic, not the pile of dice.

*** EDIT ***

Yeah, here we go: I found the thread ! And I was mis-remembering. It wasn't 5 or 6 turns, it was 4.

I think it's okay to draw something like this out for a few more rolls cutting the elapsed time for each round down to 10-20 sec rather than a minute or so. It may not be necessary but rolling does add tension and more rolls potentially allows for being able to use more descriptive maneuvers, Powers/Skills/Talents and the spending of Adv/Threats etc. before the battle ends.

I think this is one time that more rolling adds to the excitement rather than bogging things down. Again I'd only recommend Opposing rolls and such that draw things out against major opponents and only for duels. But keep in mind that it's possible that FFG is working on duelling rules similar to those found for gunslingers in a future supplement so whatever we come up with here will likely be superseded. So follow the KISS rule (Keep It Simple Stup*d)

Opposed checks are great if you want to abstractly resolve a combat scene without going into combat rounds. You can treat Failure as death for a minion/rival, or degrees of Failure as Wounds for PC/Nemesis. And Success would similarly result in killing a minion/rival or wounding a PC/Nemesis. But the outcome is decided by the dice and narrated by the parties in involved, and then the scene ends after the check is resolved.

This is especially useful if you wanted to run a split party where one person is fighting in a duel and the others are, say, trying to escape on a freighter. Player X makes his opposed check, and the NPC doesn't make any checks, but instead his actions are determined by the Failures, Threat & Despair present on the dice. Then the scene shifts to the other party members who are trying some social stuff or stealthy stuff. They each make a check or do something else narrative, and it's back to Player X. You could keep going until you get a double Triumph or a double Despair (and lose a hand), or until there's an opening for either the villain or hero to back off from the fight and survive (perhaps spending a Destiny Point to fall through a refuse chute and suffer only minor bumps and bruises).

Thoughts on Opposed checks for narrative play?

In general, I think Opposed checks for narrative play are fine. I think I would prefer competitive checks for combat, with difficulty very loosely based on range. Successes translate into damaging the opposing side, advantages/triumphs into battlefield position.

I think I may prefer one over the other based on the circumstances. The nice thing is you don't need codified rules for this, so long as you can keep things consistent. Basically, whatever works for your table.

Ah good point. I think in a competitive check using melee combat, the base difficulty would of course be Average, but I think I'd like to base the overall difficulty on terrain & environment, much like they do in chases. Unsure footing might lead to a difficulty increase or upgrade, whereas smoke or dim lighting might grant Setbacks. And of course the Adversary talent would apply.

In an Opposed Check situation, I would not apply the Adversary talent.

In an Opposed Check situation, I would not apply the Adversary talent.

Agreed. In fact I would suggest not using Opposed rolls unless the opponent had at least one level of Adversary. Any opponent not bada$$ enough to merit levels of Adversary wouldn't be worthy of a duel of the type being discussed.

Isn't that kinda the point of Adversary? I mean a guy with Lightsaber 3:2 opposed, and a guy with Adversary 3 will generate the difficulty using either method. And if you're having a duel that guy better darn well have adversary...

Isn't that kinda the point of Adversary? I mean a guy with Lightsaber 3:2 opposed, and a guy with Adversary 3 will generate the difficulty using either method. And if you're having a duel that guy better darn well have adversary...

Yeah, my issue is just that taking an opponent's skill pool and Adversary into account is basically doubling up. The Adversary talent is meant, in my mind, to represent "skilled opposition" or "elite training," and that is exactly what skill ranks are for So it'd be like giving Batman a Boost die to hide because his suit is black, and then another Boost die to hide because his suit is dark .