Disarming Smile states that you lower target's defense rating by ranks of Disarming Smile until the end of the encounter.

Is it somekind of permanent modifier or is it a one time deal ?

I mean if the target has a Defense rating of 1 ; I've got both ranks of Disarming Smile : if I succeed the check, his defense gets lowered by 2 and now drops to 0 (can't be -1).

What if he later goes into cover, will he still get the bonus defense from cover (even if it can or cannot stack with the base Defense rating of 1 of the Character), or will it too be negated by the talent Disarming Smile ?

What happens if I use Disarming Smile on a dude with a undrawn vibrosword with Defensive 1 ? Assuming he doesn't have any Defense rating at first, I use Disarming Smile and lowers his defense by 2 (still at 0) ; would the dude get Melee defense 1 or will it stay at 0 ?

Thanks
(if it's answered in the long version of the talent in the Smuggler book, I don't have the book right now)

The talent specifies that it cannot reduce Defence below 0, so if someone does something retroactively to gain +1 defence I'd rule that they do indeed get that bonus to Defence. Since the talent reduces Defence for the duration of the encounter against all attacks (not just attacks from the character using the talent) I feel it's sufficiently powerful as is.

Of course, there's nothing preventing the character from using it again on the same target to reduce his/her Defence further if they take cover or draw a vibrosword or something similar.

The talent specifies that it cannot reduce Defence below 0, so if someone does something retroactively to gain +1 defence I'd rule that they do indeed get that bonus to Defence. Since the talent reduces Defence for the duration of the encounter against all attacks (not just attacks from the character using the talent) I feel it's sufficiently powerful as is.

Of course, there's nothing preventing the character from using it again on the same target to reduce his/her Defence further if they take cover or draw a vibrosword or something similar.

I think the game designers put the "to a minimum of 0" limitation because it would be awkward to interpret a -1 defense rating. What would it do ? would it add a boost die to attack against that target ? So they ruled it to a minimum of 0.

Also, I know we shouldn't base our interpretation of the talent base on it's name, but I tend to view the power has a way to have the opponent drop his guard, be complacent. Like a thug trying to beat down a little girl... he won't be as alert against her then if he was fighting another ruthless thug. So since she looks a little defenseless and vulnerable, he's not really thinking about getting punched in the face and preparing to take the hit.... Thinking the talent that way, I'm more inclined to put a permanent -2 to defense and cap it to a minimum of 0, not stackable.

Also, putting a permanent -2 defense and cap it to a minimum of 0 eliminates the risk of stupid ruling :

- Target has 2 perfectly identical vibro-swords, one draw and the other on his back. I use Disarming Smile to drop his defense (saying his sword lost its defense 1 rating) ; he then drops his current vibro-sword and draws the other one to gain back his 1 defense rating....

- Target is in cover. I use Disarming Smile to drop his defense (negating the effect of cover) ; he just stands out of cover and moves to another cover to gain back his 1 defense rating...

- Target has a defense rating of 8. I use Disarming Smile on him four time to drop his defense to 0.

To me, all these exemples are stupid and should not happen in a game...

Some people might just say that they use 1-2 maneuvers to gain back their defense and that they earn the right to have it back... I still think it's stupid to have to perfectly identical vibro-sword, one granting defense and the other not because a kid use Disarming Smile.

Anyway.... I think I'll ask Sam to have it right.

In the description of disarming smile it indicates that it is referring to "the target's defense [melee and ranged]" which to me, does not include defensive bonuses given by cover.

In the description of disarming smile it indicates that it is referring to "the target's defense [melee and ranged]" which to me, does not include defensive bonuses given by cover.

If you don't include the bonus from Cover, then why stop there ? Why not exclude Defense bonus from armor and weapons ?

Disarming Smile only means that you're sloppy, you don't stand correctly behind cover, you don't hold your weapon in the right defensive way, you don't angle your armor to maximize the plating, etc.

Defense is Defense... from either Cover, Talents, Armor or Weapons... Some give a Defense value, other increase your defense value.... but they are all included in the Defense "stat".

In the description of disarming smile it indicates that it is referring to "the target's defense [melee and ranged]" which to me, does not include defensive bonuses given by cover.

Cover = "[allows] the character to gain ranged defense 1 (and some cover can grant a ranged defense higher than 1 if particularly sturdy)."

Defensive/Deflection = "increases his [melee/ranged] defense by the weapon's [Defensive/Deflection] rating."

Armor Defense Stat = "The armor's defense adds [setback dice] equal to the rating directly to the attacker's pool.]

FFG doesn't make a distinction between what grants a character a defensive rating. A character simply uses his highest available. The effects of Disarming Smile are made to last all encounter for a reason. That is, until the end of the encounter the -2 doesn't go away. It's just that a defense rating can't go below 0.

Also keep in mind, very few things actually grant defenses. Armor for example doesn't actually grant a defense rating. It applies setback dice directly to an attacker's pool and is therefore not reduced. It is the only "defensive" item worded to directly apply it's value as setback dice for a good reason.

To clarify with example:

• Thug wielding two vibroswords has a melee defense of 2 and ranged defense of 0.
• Sam uses Disarming Smile (1 rank) on Thug.
• Thug now has a melee defense of 1 (2-1) and a ranged defense of 0 (0-1).
• Thug dives for cover for a ranged defense of 0 (1-1).
• Thug suddenly pulls out a saber revealing himself to be the BBEG all along and has (through talents) a melee defense of 2 and ranged defense of 3 which he uses instead of the 1 from cover for a total ranged defense of 2 (3-1). With his vibrosword in his off-hand he has a total melee defense of 2 (2+1-1).
• *fast forward*
• Encounter ends after BBEG flees. He ranged defense goes back up to 3.

Again keep in mind that Armor doesn't actually grant a character a defense rating. It's specifically worded to add setback directly to attacker's pools. It's the exact same effect, but with a different cause. This allows Armor and Cover to still stack as well as make it so armor isn't reduced by talents and the like that reduce defense ratings.

Edit (Addition):

It's also why Disarming Smile also specifically reduce's a Target's defense rating . FFG did decide to make a distinction between an Armor's Defense Rating and a Character's Defense Rating.

Armor Defense Stat = "The armor's defense adds [setback dice] equal to the rating directly to the attacker's pool.]

Also keep in mind, very few things actually grant defenses. Armor for example doesn't actually grant a defense rating. It applies setback dice directly to an attacker's pool and is therefore not reduced. It is the only "defensive" item worded to directly apply it's value as setback dice for a good reason.

Again keep in mind that Armor doesn't actually grant a character a defense rating. It's specifically worded to add setback directly to attacker's pools. It's the exact same effect, but with a different cause. This allows Armor and Cover to still stack as well as make it so armor isn't reduced by talents and the like that reduce defense ratings.

Force and Destiny CoreRulebook p.39 : " Defense is most commonly gained by wearing armor or by adopting a defensive position... "

Armor grants Defense... don't start that debate again

You had me there...

But for everything else you said... that's how I see it.

Thanks

Force and Destiny CoreRulebook p.39 : " Defense is most commonly gained by wearing armor or by adopting a defensive position... "

Armor grants Defense... don't start that debate again

You had me there...

But for everything else you said... that's how I see it.

Thanks

There's a key difference between fluff stating where character's commonly get defenses from and the actual listed mechanical benefit of an Armor's Defense Characteristic. Edit: Especially since the two sections are often written by completely different writer's and then copy pasted throughout the books.

EoTE pg 168: "The armor's defense adds [setback dice] equal to the rating directly to the attacker's pool . This reflects the armor's ability to deflect damage away from the user's body."

AoR pg 183: "The armor's defense adds [setback dice] equal to the rating directly to the attacker's pool . This reflects the armor's ability to deflect damage away from the user's body."

F&D pg 178: "The armor's defense adds [setback dice] equal to the rating directly to the attacker's pool . This reflects the armor's ability to deflect damage away from the user's body."

It's not a debate. FFG makes it very clear that armor doesn't grant the character an actual defense rating. Cover, talents, and weapons with the defensive or deflection qualities are worded to grant defensive bonuses/ratings to the character him/herself.

However, yes, that's a whole nother topic on it's own. Anyone who disagrees with how my RAI is handled can for my example, assume the thug had no armor on with a Defense value.

You can take a look at the Official FAQ from the website where it is clearly stated that Armor does grant defense, where he states that you choose the highest value from either Cover or Armor, thus they do not stack (2nd question).

I believe they worded the Defense quality of Armor this way to make it faster to implement in-game. I agree that's it's probably doing more harm this way.

You can take a look at the Official FAQ from the website where it is clearly stated that Armor does grant defense, where he states that you choose the highest value from either Cover or Armor, thus they do not stack (2nd question).

I believe they worded the Defense quality of Armor this way to make it faster to implement in-game. I agree that's it's probably doing more harm this way.

Well would you look at that. I'll still stick with what my group's been doing, but nice to know there was an official clarification. It would have been nice if they changed that in AoR and F&D to represent it further.

Still, example stands lol.

Disarming Smile states that you lower target's defense rating by ranks of Disarming Smile until the end of the encounter.

Is it somekind of permanent modifier or is it a one time deal ?

I mean if the target has a Defense rating of 1 ; I've got both ranks of Disarming Smile : if I succeed the check, his defense gets lowered by 2 and now drops to 0 (can't be -1).

What if he later goes into cover, will he still get the bonus defense from cover (even if it can or cannot stack with the base Defense rating of 1 of the Character), or will it too be negated by the talent Disarming Smile ?

What happens if I use Disarming Smile on a dude with a undrawn vibrosword with Defensive 1 ? Assuming he doesn't have any Defense rating at first, I use Disarming Smile and lowers his defense by 2 (still at 0) ; would the dude get Melee defense 1 or will it stay at 0 ?

Thanks

(if it's answered in the long version of the talent in the Smuggler book, I don't have the book right now)

Well, probably best to actually check the original reference before bringing it to the forums...

The talent specifies that it cannot reduce Defence below 0, so if someone does something retroactively to gain +1 defence I'd rule that they do indeed get that bonus to Defence. Since the talent reduces Defence for the duration of the encounter against all attacks (not just attacks from the character using the talent) I feel it's sufficiently powerful as is.

Of course, there's nothing preventing the character from using it again on the same target to reduce his/her Defence further if they take cover or draw a vibrosword or something similar.

If what JP has transcribed is correct, I read this very differently. If what's above is accurate, then the target is getting a -1 penalty to defense for the entire encounter.

If that target initially has defense = 0, then it stays at zero.

If that target later would receive a defense bonus (let's say "x") during the same encounter , then at that point his defense becomes x - 1. Because it's still the same encounter, and that penalty is still active.

Also,

Yeah, I feel like there is. The 'stacking' rules seem pretty clear; you can't benefit from the same bonus more than once, so similarly you don't suffer from the same penalty more than once.

You can't just keep throwing the same penalty at a target and have the effects be cumulative.

Addendum: wow the quoting system in this forum sux.

The talent specifies that it cannot reduce Defence below 0, so if someone does something retroactively to gain +1 defence I'd rule that they do indeed get that bonus to Defence. Since the talent reduces Defence for the duration of the encounter against all attacks (not just attacks from the character using the talent) I feel it's sufficiently powerful as is.

Of course, there's nothing preventing the character from using it again on the same target to reduce his/her Defence further if they take cover or draw a vibrosword or something similar.

If what JP has transcribed is correct, I read this very differently. If what's above is accurate, then the target is getting a -1 penalty to defense for the entire encounter.

If that target initially has defense = 0, then it stays at zero.

If that target later would receive a defense bonus (let's say "x") during the same encounter , then at that point his defense becomes x - 1. Because it's still the same encounter, and that penalty is still active.

Also,

Except for where it says in the talent description, and I quote: "[...]reduce the target's defence (melee and ranged) by a number equal to the character's ranks in Disarming Smile (to a minimum of 0)." That's an explicit and unambiguous rule that says you can't get into negative defence.

Except for where it says in the talent description, and I quote: "[...]reduce the target's defence (melee and ranged) by a number equal to the character's ranks in Disarming Smile (to a minimum of 0)." That's an explicit and unambiguous rule that says you can't get into negative defence.

What's the purpose of this response? I never said that defense should be negative or that it should be below zero.

Except for where it says in the talent description, and I quote: "[...]reduce the target's defence (melee and ranged) by a number equal to the character's ranks in Disarming Smile (to a minimum of 0)." That's an explicit and unambiguous rule that says you can't get into negative defence.

What's the purpose of this response? I never said that defense should be negative or that it should be below zero.

I'm thinking it's a perception of how the power works over time.

A few of us thinks it is a continuous modifier always looking for it's trigger : that over the encounter, the modifier always looks at the Defense value of the target and lowers it by ranks of Disarming Smile to a minimum of 0.

To Krieger22, it's a one shot deal : you pop the power, it reduces the current defense value of the target by ranks in Disarming Smile to a minimum of 0 and it's over.

I asked that question directly to the devs and still waiting a response.

This went on a bit longer than you'd really think it would.. If the target is losing 2 defense because disarming smile, he's losing 2 defense.. If he only had 1 defense it's zero.. if he somehow goes to 2 defense he's still at zero cuse he's losing 2 defense for the entire encounter.

Sure the game doesn't go into the negatives but 2 defense down is still 2 defense down.

If you absolutely need something "crunchy" to tell you disarming smile isn't a 1 time thing.. you build your dice pool at the start of every action.

Take your attributes.. boost dice for skills.. take purples than blacks for defense.. oh look disarming smile gets rid of 2 of those defensive dice

That's... odd, but also why I qualified my interpretation with "I read it differently." To me , The Krieger22's interpretation seems to ignore the duration of the power.

Please share the devs' repsonse when you get it.

This went on a bit longer than you'd really think it would.. If the target is losing 2 defense because disarming smile, he's losing 2 defense.. If he only had 1 defense it's zero.. if he somehow goes to 2 defense he's still at zero cuse he's losing 2 defense for the entire encounter.

Sure the game doesn't go into the negatives but 2 defense down is still 2 defense down.

If you absolutely need something "crunchy" to tell you disarming smile isn't a 1 time thing.. you build your dice pool at the start of every action.

Take your attributes.. boost dice for skills.. take purples than blacks for defense.. oh look disarming smile gets rid of 2 of those defensive dice

Another excellent point.

Except for where it says in the talent description, and I quote: "[...]reduce the target's defence (melee and ranged) by a number equal to the character's ranks in Disarming Smile (to a minimum of 0)." That's an explicit and unambiguous rule that says you can't get into negative defence.

You are also conveniently leaving out the part that says that the effect lasts until the end of the encounter.

Just because the -X can't bring the total defense below 0 doesn't mean it disappears. Treat it as a simple math problem... A subject's defense value is equal to its base rating plus any additional modifiers currently affecting it with a minimum value of 0. Until the encounter ends, the target is affected by the -X from Disarming Smile.

Side Note: You can use Disarming Smile X on someone with a defense of 0 in order to lower future gains by X.

You can take a look at the Official FAQ from the website where it is clearly stated that Armor does grant defense, where he states that you choose the highest value from either Cover or Armor, thus they do not stack (2nd question).

I believe they worded the Defense quality of Armor this way to make it faster to implement in-game. I agree that's it's probably doing more harm this way.

I think adding a 'clarification' that defense means defense would probably have confused more people than it helped, TBH.