I once used Force Power Move to "remove" a Rival Storm Trooper Sergent from his minion group he was using has meat shield (squad rules) and then my buddies proceeded to hack him off

If you're an Ataru Striker, with Hawk Bat Swoop and Saber Swarm, just a single bladed Lightsaber is enough to cause rampage.

If you're a Niman Disciple, you're better off with Dual Wield Lightsaber with Superior and Paired Weapons and Curved Hilt... that's a monster combo

If you're a Soresu Defender, i'd go with Dual Wield Lightsaber, one with Lorrdian Gemstone and another "offensive" crystal.

For everything else, I'd go Saberstaff.

This game just has a lot of grey areas, and the best GM's can do about it is be as consistent as is reasonable.

That sentence is probably the single most important thing to remember with this system.

Unlike a great many games produced by "big box" companies like WotC or Paizo, FFG's Star Wars game has a lot more of an "indie RPG" feel in that it gives more power to the GM to adjudicate things rather than tie the GM's hands with iron-clad rules. WotC tried the "iron-clad rules" approach with the 3rd edition of D&D, and it lead to a lot of problems as creative players found various loopholes to exploit and less-experienced GMs not sure what to do to close those loopholes.

Jay Little (guy who developed/designed the core system) took the opposite approach, designing a system that has a fairly solid core rules structure, and leaving it to the GM to cover any loopholes or outliers that may crop up. After all, as dedicated and talented as the writers might be, there's no way they can hope to cover every conceivable situation that can crop up at one's gaming table. We players are a devious bunch, and there's a whole lot more of us than there are of them.

This game just has a lot of grey areas, and the best GM's can do about it is be as consistent as is reasonable.

That sentence is probably the single most important thing to remember with this system.

Unlike a great many games produced by "big box" companies like WotC or Paizo, FFG's Star Wars game has a lot more of an "indie RPG" feel in that it gives more power to the GM to adjudicate things rather than tie the GM's hands with iron-clad rules. WotC tried the "iron-clad rules" approach with the 3rd edition of D&D, and it lead to a lot of problems as creative players found various loopholes to exploit and less-experienced GMs not sure what to do to close those loopholes.

Jay Little (guy who developed/designed the core system) took the opposite approach, designing a system that has a fairly solid core rules structure, and leaving it to the GM to cover any loopholes or outliers that may crop up. After all, as dedicated and talented as the writers might be, there's no way they can hope to cover every conceivable situation that can crop up at one's gaming table. We players are a devious bunch, and there's a whole lot more of us than there are of them.

I can dig that, there hasn't ever been a system/setting I've GM'ed that I haven't tinkered with in some form or fashion. If I end up being the GM for a FaD game, for example, I fully intended to divorce the Lightsaber forms from the Careers and make them generic specialities like Recruit/Force Sensitive Emergent in AoR and Force Sensitive Exile in EotE. I don't see the point of an XP tax for a character that does want to focus their character on learning lightsaber forms, especially since canon examples from the Star Wars Universe frequently shift between multiple forms within a single combat.

My initial Draw Closer comments were intended as RAW analysis, not what anyone should tabletop rule. I just like to have firm grasp of RAW before I tinker with setting mechanics, house rules, and game balance. I personally feel that rules that break the narrative/mood/tone of a particular game (which always needs to be determined by an individual gaming group) work against the collective storytelling that is a role playing game.

Don't forget that it's perfectly reasonable to add Setback(s) for using a double bladed or staff weapon in certain situations, like hallways or most starship interiors (not every ship building has rooms and hallways like we see in The Old Republic or KOTOR).

I didn't notice it discussed in this thread so I thought I'd mention it, parry vs the linked attack. My interpretation would be that the linked attack isn't just double damage, it's a seperate strike. If the person being struck has parry they can use it again (suffering another 3 strain.) Soak would also apply twice if it were high enough to counter breach or just cortosis based.

I didn't notice it discussed in this thread so I thought I'd mention it, parry vs the linked attack. My interpretation would be that the linked attack isn't just double damage, it's a seperate strike. If the person being struck has parry they can use it again (suffering another 3 strain.) Soak would also apply twice if it were high enough to counter breach or just cortosis based.

And that would be correct, in that each activation of the LInked quality is a separate hit, and Parry can be used against each one of them. So the Linked 1 of a double-bladed lightsaber is not so much "double damage" as "hits twice." As such, unless you've got a Soak Value through the rough, it wouldn't get factored in (barring the cortosis quality) since it's also applied separately to each hit.

In fact, Max Brooke and Sam Stewart had a Twitter conversation a while back (during the FaD Beta) about an in-house game where in the course of a single round, there were five Parry activations due to a blend of double-bladed lightsaber and the Improved Parry talent.

You can use it on minions. Because they are one target. Hawkbat swoop also allows the use of force pips for successes.

Not successes. Only advantages. Niman's Draw closer is only one that adds successes. Also not sure if Haw bat works with two weapon fighting or linked?

Out of curiosity if you shift away from lightsaber forms being in a career does that mean you would alow them to star in an F&D career but choose a lightsaber form as their 1st specialization?

I have house rules in every system once I understand the raw so always like seeing others.

Currently I have Parry and reflect being activated by 2 threats instead of 3.

I also limit the crit upgrades from advantages to no more than 3 upgrades after initial activation.

I also give players a skill rank in two of a specialization's skills when they take a new specialization, but that bonus can't give them more than 2 ranks. If a player has 2 ranks in all of that specializations skills I give them a 5xp discount for buying it

Out of curiosity if you shift away from lightsaber forms being in a career does that mean you would alow them to star in an F&D career but choose a lightsaber form as their 1st specialization?

In an era where a force sensitive could be trained from the beginning I would, they would just designate their Career and take a Form specialty of their choice, then follow normal rules for specialization aquisition. In default era of FaD/EotE/AoR I would not.

Currently I have Parry and reflect being activated by 2 threats instead of 3.

I assume you mean strain (or I am missing something again - entirely possible) - I have just recently been learning the system and have only had a few sessions, but I am curious how that change effects the flow of combat. I have already noticed that once you have lightsaber combat and access to parry/reflect the grit talent becomes even more inportant.

I also limit the crit upgrades from advantages to no more than 3 upgrades after initial activation.

I'm mostly curious on the reasoning behind this on, since in theory any weapon could luck out and instantly kill someone.

I also give players a skill rank in two of a specialization's skills when they take a new specialization, but that bonus can't give them more than 2 ranks. If a player has 2 ranks in all of that specializations skills I give them a 5xp discount for buying it

I plan on something similar, although I plan on it being a 10 xp discount on specialization skills that cannot raise a skill above 2, which is very close to what a starting specialization typically gives. If all skills are already at 2 then it will be tough luck and no discount

If you really want to nerf it in a more realistic way, make it 4 Advantage to hit with the second blade. Making it so it has to be against 2 targets is a bit gamey. Or even the number of Advantage needed is equal to the Cumbersome quality.

I meant improved parry and improved reflect.

I found in beginning sessions both players and enemies were increasing our crits two much and never spending the advantages on anything else. My players actually requested the limit. Between vicious and lethal blows since all my players have specializations from AoR or Edge the limit works. Also makes nonminion fights longer .

Back to the thread. I don't believe double bladed saber is any more powerful then autofire or two weapon fighting. I agree setbacks in situations where one hand free might come up to balance why using a single lightsaber is beneficial. Also feel the hardness of the item being one less allows for one less upgrade is good. The cost of everything to upgrade is double. My darth maul clone who uses one has a harder time hiding his saber than everyone else. I don't allow it to get a shadowsheath

If you really want to nerf it in a more realistic way, make it 4 Advantage to hit with the second blade. Making it so it has to be against 2 targets is a bit gamey. Or even the number of Advantage needed is equal to the Cumbersome quality.

I'm curious what you mean by "in a more realistic way". Though to be honest if you up it to 4 Advantages a player is just better off building a shoto sabre. Thus overall anyone picking their lightsabre based on the number of hits they get are just going to by pass the additional difficulties set up for just the double sabre in favor of two lightsabre's that won't come with all that trouble.

If you really want to nerf it in a more realistic way, make it 4 Advantage to hit with the second blade. Making it so it has to be against 2 targets is a bit gamey. Or even the number of Advantage needed is equal to the Cumbersome quality.

I'm curious what you mean by "in a more realistic way". Though to be honest if you up it to 4 Advantages a player is just better off building a shoto sabre. Thus overall anyone picking their lightsabre based on the number of hits they get are just going to by pass the additional difficulties set up for just the double sabre in favor of two lightsabre's that won't come with all that trouble.

I meant that forcing a player to only used the Linked vs two opponents is unrealistic.

Again I think making any changes to double sabers isn't needed. The conflict with double savers comes in the narative. Can't walk into a cantina concealing as easily. A gunslinger has a much easier time walking into a cantina then a rifle sharpshooter. Also if you have cinematic fight scense jumping or climbing during fights would have a setback if no hand is free. Also it's not raw, but I play both sides of a double saber can't be used unless holding it two hands. Sine by raw you can weild a double saber onehanded

Again I think making any changes to double sabers isn't needed. The conflict with double savers comes in the narative. Can't walk into a cantina concealing as easily. A gunslinger has a much easier time walking into a cantina then a rifle sharpshooter. Also if you have cinematic fight scense jumping or climbing during fights would have a setback if no hand is free. Also it's not raw, but I play both sides of a double saber can't be used unless holding it two hands. Sine by raw you can weild a double saber onehanded

Where in RAW does it say double sabers require 2 hands? There was a thread about this recently and it was noted RAW says nothing on the matter.

Did you read that I said it's not raw, but I require two hands to get the linked quality. It is not realistic to attack with both sides of the weapon one handed. Again I know it's not raw, but I don't like the feel of something I have tried and is almost impossible to pull off with any accuracy.

However fighting with one side of a two handed weapon with one hand is possible and sometimes depending on skill gives distance or momentum of the attack. I would allow to be used one handed to attack just without linked.

I don't get this entire "realism" or "I wielded a staff one handed once and it didn't work" marlarky. Star wars is all about divorcing from that in exchange for drama and awesome climatic action. It's something I would definately inflict a critical on and perhaps give setbacks on the attack for using a unweildly and extremely dangerous weapon one handed, but otherwise I wouldn't sweat the details in limiting it, beyond the narrative of obtaining the crystals and perhaps it's distinctive presence.

Besides, the inquisitor had a double saber that was essentially wielded one handed. Exar Kun's double saber was also fairly small, though one could argue they fought in a manner that kept their off hand free rather then occupied with another weapon. The only lightsaber I would consider ill suited for wielding duel wielding would be something like Maul's lightsaber, that is so large it's more like a lightsaber pike with blades on the end.

As someone who uses one in our game I can say it is not OP. It has advantages and disadvantages just like any other weapon. Here is how I see it:

Disadvantages:

- Cost (This is a big one)
- Harder to hide

- Unwieldy 3

- Possible disadvantageous combat situations

- 1 less HP than a standard saber hilt

Advantages:

- Linked 1 built in

- Use as either a 1 or two bladed weapon (This should be allowed)

- Possible dual wield two dual bladed sabers (not sure how this would be super advantageous, though it is possible imo)

To me it has more disadvantages, but is still a good weapon. Two single bladed sabers would be better as you could pair one of them and add different crystals giving you different passives that you could use. I would argue that the rule you do not need two crystals for the hilt should be done away with and make it so the hilt can have two different crystals in it, but hey that is what inventing new items is for. To those that think it cannot be wielded one handed please let me know why when the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it can and has be wielded one handed (well as much evidence as you can get for fictitious items). For those who say you cannot dual wield them look at Pong Krell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcfV6yUUMhs

Disadvantages:

- Cost (This is a big one)

- Harder to hide

- Unwieldy 3

- Possible disadvantageous combat situations

- 1 less HP than a standard saber hilt

Also don't forget ENC 2, ENC really is an important balancing tool.

A lot of advantages/disadvantages to weapons in RPGs are narrative, especially FFGSW, so if you feel like a weapon is too powerful you probably are handwaving something you could be applying.

A few notes:

- Possible dual wield two dual bladed sabers (not sure how this would be super advantageous, though it is possible imo)

Well, it's possible if the GM says it's possible , and this point is actually very explicitly discussed in the two-weapon combat rules; It's clearly stated that the GM has final say as to whether a weapon can be "reasonably held and wielded in one hand." (F&D Core, p 217). And while this passage is directly addressing the determination of what qualifies as a one-handed weapon in the context of two-weapon combat, I'm not really sure where there could be a more-than-trivial issue when determining what qualifies as a one-hander outside of this context. Well, I guess if a hand were immobilized or removed, it could be an issue as well, but I think that such a character would have bigger issues to deal with.

Also, I'd agree that wielding more than one double 'saber isn't gonna net you much of a benefit (at least given the nearly 20k bill for a second one) until you've got some pretty, oh... what do the kids call it? 'M@d Sk!llz'? It's just so unlikely to get 4 or more adv on a roll with net successes until your fairly advanced.

Everyone always brings this guy up but never addresses that he's got FOUR frakking arms . I acknowledge that those clips almost never show him using his lower arms, but I'd argue it stands to reason that if a four-armed jedi can effectively use 2 double sabers, then a two-armed one can effectively use 1. A Besalisk's brain would be wired to handle that kind of multitasking better than a species with two dexterous limbs.

Edit: Found a grammar error that was bugging me.

To me it has more disadvantages, but is still a good weapon. Two single bladed sabers would be better as you could pair one of them and add different crystals giving you different passives that you could use. I would argue that the rule you do not need two crystals for the hilt should be done away with and make it so the hilt can have two different crystals in it, but hey that is what inventing new items is for. To those that think it cannot be wielded one handed please let me know why when the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it can and has be wielded one handed (well as much evidence as you can get for fictitious items). For those who say you cannot dual wield them look at Pong Krell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcfV6yUUMhs

He has four arms. Also Pong Krell was built. Dude was HUGE. Not a good example.

As I stated in the other thread though, on this matter specifically, wielding two of them at once and doing so with any real effectiveness are two separate things. A PC should be allowed to use two of them. He just shouldn't be allowed to gain linked for both of them. It's a flashy thing to do but you know .... it just doesn't seem like it's an effective (and thus Linked gaining) fighting style. You can either get two attacks from using two weapons or two attacks from using Linked. Just not both.

Basically to gain the Linked advantage both hands need to be firmly in control of the weapon. If you're using it one handed or attempt to use two at once you're just not handling the weapon with the same level of control. The level of control I feel one needs in order to reasonably gain the Linked advantage.

And I'd also say that I don't consider the evidence all that overwhelming. Krell is likely the best example of using two at once but most other characters used two hands to wield it. I honestly don't consider a Jedi used for only 1 or 2 episodes to be overwhelming evidence.