And sometimes melee brawls in cantinas don't get investigated by the authorities with the same level of determination that a firefight with blasters would. Settling scores with knuckles mean that the losers don't have to end up dead or with lots of wounds instead of strain.

Since most blasters have stun settings, just use that and enjoy the same benefits.

Part of it is because in the early game the system rewards having one high stat. Brawn usually gets you the most bang for the buck as it ups your wounds, ups your soak

Your wound count does not increase with the increase of Brawn stat (unless you're using a house rule to that effect), only soak increases.

Brawn does up your initial wound points. I think that is what jmoschner was saying.

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

This, though,

Brawn usually gets you the most bang for the buck as it ups your wounds, ups your soak

Only really applies if a Game is heavily or decently centered around combat.

Most of the games I've been in, the focus has been on ranged combat, with very little focus on Melee or Brawl unless the player is making a Hired Gun/Marauder or Soldier/Commando. If anything, a lot of PCs tend to pick up a couple of ranks in Ranged (Light) so that they can effectively contribute to a combat, even if it's only to pass along boost dice to more combat capable members or do things to hinder an opponent (such as disarms or knocking prone or simply giving them setback dice on their attacks). For the most part, ranged weapons have a superior damage output (especially the Ranged: Heavy weapons) and allow the shooter to benefit from cover. And often, the melee bruiser in the games I've played in or run has an alarming tendency to get chewed up pretty badly; during a demo run of Escape from Mos Shutta, the Wookiee Hired Gun wound up using up most of the group's stimpacks just from the sheer amount of damage he was taking in each fight. Meanwhile, the PCs with blasters were hanging back and using cover to avoid getting filled with holes.

Obviously there's probably going to be more of a focus in close-quarters fighting for the Lightsaber crowd, but they've generally got defensive measures to offset the problems of getting in close enough to strike in a setting where everybody else is using ranged weapons as the default.

And then there are those of us who like playing Wookiee Marauders.

Or Nikto Marauders that pick up Shii-Cho Knight (with no Force ability) to play at Morgukai.

And then there are those of us who like playing Wookiee Marauders.

Nothing wrong with a Wookiee beatstick.

Seen a coupe of them in action, and as they buy up into the Marauder tree, they just get nastier and nastier in a scrap. Of course, it helps when you've also got a Force Exile with Move as an ally that's willing to pull those longer distance targets in close to you so you don't have to waste time chasing after them.

Just keep an eye on that strain threshold and hope the bad guys don't set their blasters to stun...

They are secretly hoping to stumble across a lightsaber...

Yes, even if they are not force sensitive/Jedi, they still want a lightsaber.

Because deep down none of us want to be Luke, we all want to be Han Solo with a lightsaber.

Yup. The lightsaber isn't 'an elegant weapon from a more civilized age', it's the galaxy's ultimate utility knife.

They are secretly hoping to stumble across a lightsaber...

Yes, even if they are not force sensitive/Jedi, they still want a lightsaber.

Because deep down none of us want to be Luke, we all want to be Han Solo with a lightsaber.

Yup. The lightsaber isn't 'an elegant weapon from a more civilized age', it's the galaxy's ultimate utility knife.

I need to get one Combined with the Ultimate utility tool!

The Sonic Screw Driver!

I need to get one Combined with the Ultimate utility tool!

The Sonic Screw Driver!

The Sonic Space Glasses are much cooler!

I need to get one Combined with the Ultimate utility tool!

The Sonic Screw Driver!

The Sonic Space Glasses are much cooler!

I am not a fan of the glasses... Call Me old SChwhool

And sometimes melee brawls in cantinas don't get investigated by the authorities with the same level of determination that a firefight with blasters would. Settling scores with knuckles mean that the losers don't have to end up dead or with lots of wounds instead of strain.

Since most blasters have stun settings, just use that and enjoy the same benefits.

Yeah but then you don't get the satisfaction of your fist smacking someone in the face.

The one big negative for me is how easy it is for a range character to disengage from a melee character. Maybe I'm too used to dnd, but it just seems wrong that players or NPCs can disengage without penalty.

The one big negative for me is how easy it is for a range character to disengage from a melee character. Maybe I'm too used to dnd, but it just seems wrong that players or NPCs can disengage without penalty.

One of the things I've been considering doing when this happens is giving the NPC they are disengaging from an incidental maneuver so they can pop back to make it a medium ranged shot. What usually happens with my group is the following:

NPC engages PC 1 deals some melee damage

PC 1 uses maneuver to disengage and action to fire at short range, usually critting if not killing NPC

NPC engages again, if they're still alive, which they usually aren't.

The one big negative for me is how easy it is for a range character to disengage from a melee character. Maybe I'm too used to dnd, but it just seems wrong that players or NPCs can disengage without penalty.

You'd have to come up with Opportunity actions in this game or it would be skewed towards melee PCs, and since the only reason that rule exists in DnD is the Opportunity mechanic and there is nothing like it in this game, there is no place for it in this game.

I honestly don't even understand the rationale for Opportunity attacks other than it fits the rule system in DnD, because it doesn't make any sense that just stepping backwards gives someone a free shot.

I do see the problem here though, If your are Ranged, unless you are also good at melee or brawl, why wouldn't yu use 1 maneuver to get back to short range instead of firing into melee at a 2D difficulty, Even melee your at 2D where at short range you are at 1D..

I haven been finding this is the problem with Ranged Weapons and Melee, Balance...

I have thought of 4 different Fixes for this issue..

#1 Increase the difficulty for all range categories except Engaged (Engaged 2D, Short 2D, Medium, 3D, Long 4D, extreme 5D) A 5D difficulty for extreme seems like it would make more sense as regular Difficulty Levels go up to 5D at Formidable, Why not Range Difficulties?

#2 Range Difficulties remain Unchanged, but if you are engaged, and disengage from melee, then the difficulty remains at 2D.

#3 Disengaging From Melee and moving to Short costs 2 maneuvers. 1 to disengage and 1 to move to short range.

#4 Disengaging Cost 2 strain.

Has this actually been a problem? Sure the ranged guy can disengage and shoot in the same turn, but the melee guy can engage and swing in the same turn too. I think the idea of making disengagement more difficult or dangerous is a d20 holdout and I'm happy to not have it in this ruleset.

Has this actually been a problem? Sure the ranged guy can disengage and shoot in the same turn, but the melee guy can engage and swing in the same turn too. I think the idea of making disengagement more difficult or dangerous is a d20 holdout and I'm happy to not have it in this ruleset.

I think it is moreso the fact that disengaging and shooting is an Easy check, while melee is default an Average check. So statistically, disengaging and shooting is the more practical and efficient action.

Also, once I'm in melee combat with you, why would I let you get out of melee combat with me? It is one of the drawbacks of a turn based system, I -have- to let you disengage because its your turn, when in reality, I would be on you like white on rice unless something forced me off.

I think it is moreso the fact that disengaging and shooting is an Easy check, while melee is default an Average check. So statistically, disengaging and shooting is the more practical and efficient action.

Also, once I'm in melee combat with you, why would I let you get out of melee combat with me? It is one of the drawbacks of a turn based system, I -have- to let you disengage because its your turn, when in reality, I would be on you like white on rice unless something forced me off.

Shooting being more practical is pretty obvious, that's why they call guns the equalizer.

You don't have to let someone get out of melee combat, there are rules for grappling, their are weapons with Ensnare, Concussive and Knockdown, there are Melee/Brawl Talents to do the same. This notion of a melee combatant has no ability to stop someone from disengaging is a false argument imo.

I think it is moreso the fact that disengaging and shooting is an Easy check, while melee is default an Average check. So statistically, disengaging and shooting is the more practical and efficient action.

Also, once I'm in melee combat with you, why would I let you get out of melee combat with me? It is one of the drawbacks of a turn based system, I -have- to let you disengage because its your turn, when in reality, I would be on you like white on rice unless something forced me off.

Shooting being more practical is pretty obvious, that's why they call guns the equalizer.

You don't have to let someone get out of melee combat, there are rules for grappling, their are weapons with Ensnare, Concussive and Knockdown, there are Melee/Brawl Talents to do the same. This notion of a melee combatant has no ability to stop someone from disengaging is a false argument imo.

If you have ever been in a Fist fight with some one, You would KNOW that getting out of a fight with a persistent attacker is not as easy as just turning and running. And it doesn't Require the aggressor to "grapple" you.

Unless you have Some how gained an "Advantage", (such as Knocking them down while you are still standing, Stunning them, or otherwise).

So another solution I might consider is that they could only "Just disengage" if the Melee guy Obtained threat and the threat could be used to allow the Ranged guy to disengage without penalty.

As is, The advantage is Given to the range guy and makes the "Engaged" difficulty, for shooting while engaged, Pointless.

I don't wanna derail this thread too much but I have a quick question.

Let's say I have a player that wants to use their Shock Gloves and wants to dual wield attack.

Now Melee is supposed to be a set Average check.

The check still increases in difficulty by one, yes?

Yes

I think it is moreso the fact that disengaging and shooting is an Easy check, while melee is default an Average check. So statistically, disengaging and shooting is the more practical and efficient action.

Also, once I'm in melee combat with you, why would I let you get out of melee combat with me? It is one of the drawbacks of a turn based system, I -have- to let you disengage because its your turn, when in reality, I would be on you like white on rice unless something forced me off.

Shooting being more practical is pretty obvious, that's why they call guns the equalizer.

You don't have to let someone get out of melee combat, there are rules for grappling, their are weapons with Ensnare, Concussive and Knockdown, there are Melee/Brawl Talents to do the same. This notion of a melee combatant has no ability to stop someone from disengaging is a false argument imo.

If you have ever been in a Fist fight with some one, You would KNOW that getting out of a fight with a persistent attacker is not as easy as just turning and running. And it doesn't Require the aggressor to "grapple" you.

Unless you have Some how gained an "Advantage", (such as Knocking them down while you are still standing, Stunning them, or otherwise).

So another solution I might consider is that they could only "Just disengage" if the Melee guy Obtained threat and the threat could be used to allow the Ranged guy to disengage without penalty.

As is, The advantage is Given to the range guy and makes the "Engaged" difficulty, for shooting while engaged, Pointless.

I'm not comparing ego sizes with you, but over 25 years of my 'pirating' career I personally rolled initiative dozens of times, in a number of countries and on multiple continents, and stepping backwards, when someone isn't grabbing you,

I think it is moreso the fact that disengaging and shooting is an Easy check, while melee is default an Average check. So statistically, disengaging and shooting is the more practical and efficient action.

Also, once I'm in melee combat with you, why would I let you get out of melee combat with me? It is one of the drawbacks of a turn based system, I -have- to let you disengage because its your turn, when in reality, I would be on you like white on rice unless something forced me off.

Shooting being more practical is pretty obvious, that's why they call guns the equalizer.

You don't have to let someone get out of melee combat, there are rules for grappling, their are weapons with Ensnare, Concussive and Knockdown, there are Melee/Brawl Talents to do the same. This notion of a melee combatant has no ability to stop someone from disengaging is a false argument imo.

If you have ever been in a Fist fight with some one, You would KNOW that getting out of a fight with a persistent attacker is not as easy as just turning and running. And it doesn't Require the aggressor to "grapple" you.

Unless you have Some how gained an "Advantage", (such as Knocking them down while you are still standing, Stunning them, or otherwise).

So another solution I might consider is that they could only "Just disengage" if the Melee guy Obtained threat and the threat could be used to allow the Ranged guy to disengage without penalty.

As is, The advantage is Given to the range guy and makes the "Engaged" difficulty, for shooting while engaged, Pointless.

Define persistent attacker in game terms and why isn't it easy? Why can't someone step backwards? Why can't they turn and run if someone isn't grabbing them? How are they being prevented from doing that?

I think it is moreso the fact that disengaging and shooting is an Easy check, while melee is default an Average check. So statistically, disengaging and shooting is the more practical and efficient action.

Also, once I'm in melee combat with you, why would I let you get out of melee combat with me? It is one of the drawbacks of a turn based system, I -have- to let you disengage because its your turn, when in reality, I would be on you like white on rice unless something forced me off.

Shooting being more practical is pretty obvious, that's why they call guns the equalizer.

You don't have to let someone get out of melee combat, there are rules for grappling, their are weapons with Ensnare, Concussive and Knockdown, there are Melee/Brawl Talents to do the same. This notion of a melee combatant has no ability to stop someone from disengaging is a false argument imo.

If you have ever been in a Fist fight with some one, You would KNOW that getting out of a fight with a persistent attacker is not as easy as just turning and running. And it doesn't Require the aggressor to "grapple" you.

Unless you have Some how gained an "Advantage", (such as Knocking them down while you are still standing, Stunning them, or otherwise).

So another solution I might consider is that they could only "Just disengage" if the Melee guy Obtained threat and the threat could be used to allow the Ranged guy to disengage without penalty.

As is, The advantage is Given to the range guy and makes the "Engaged" difficulty, for shooting while engaged, Pointless.

I'm not comparing ego sizes with you, but over 25 years of my 'pirating' career I personally rolled initiative dozens of times, in a number of countries and on multiple continents, and stepping backwards, when someone isn't grabbing you,

I think it is moreso the fact that disengaging and shooting is an Easy check, while melee is default an Average check. So statistically, disengaging and shooting is the more practical and efficient action.

Also, once I'm in melee combat with you, why would I let you get out of melee combat with me? It is one of the drawbacks of a turn based system, I -have- to let you disengage because its your turn, when in reality, I would be on you like white on rice unless something forced me off.

Shooting being more practical is pretty obvious, that's why they call guns the equalizer.

You don't have to let someone get out of melee combat, there are rules for grappling, their are weapons with Ensnare, Concussive and Knockdown, there are Melee/Brawl Talents to do the same. This notion of a melee combatant has no ability to stop someone from disengaging is a false argument imo.

If you have ever been in a Fist fight with some one, You would KNOW that getting out of a fight with a persistent attacker is not as easy as just turning and running. And it doesn't Require the aggressor to "grapple" you.

Unless you have Some how gained an "Advantage", (such as Knocking them down while you are still standing, Stunning them, or otherwise).

So another solution I might consider is that they could only "Just disengage" if the Melee guy Obtained threat and the threat could be used to allow the Ranged guy to disengage without penalty.

As is, The advantage is Given to the range guy and makes the "Engaged" difficulty, for shooting while engaged, Pointless.

Define persistent attacker in game terms and why isn't it easy? Why can't someone step backwards? Why can't they turn and run if someone isn't grabbing them? How are they being prevented from doing that?

Stepping backwards is not the same as Disengaging..

Short range is defined as up to several meters, Engaged is Close enough to interact with. If your within a meter or two of me you are close enough for me to "interact" with you quickly. if you are several meters away, Then it becomes a bit more difficult.

And why can't they turn and just run? Firstly that is Not the same as Backing up to get some space to shot, an secondly, Unless something has Impeded your attacker from getting at you, (Stun, surprise, knocked on the ground) You can bet the aren't going to just let you run without Taking advantage of your dropping your defenses. I am not trying to compare Egos Either, What I am saying is that from my experience, Both as aggressor and as Defender, Trying to get space between you and a persistent unhindered attacker isn't as simple as just backing up a step backwards.

That is why that Loophole is just dumb, And why with that loop hole, The difficulty range of shooting while engaged is Pointless without some Drawback for disengaging without an "advantage/threat " Giving you opportunity.

This is also why you don't just see it happen in movies, The Guy with the gun doesn't just "back up and shoot" while in a melee fight. They still try to shoot while in melee. They only go for room to shoot when they have Knocked their opponent down or they have been stunned or what not.

And before you argue Cinematic license, Movies Try to maintain the the "Suspension of disbelief". As soon as they start ding things that break that illusion, the Audience starts to fall out of the immersion. Even in a "Fantasy or Sci-fi" universe, People like to have things make sense and seem believable.

Suspension of Disbelief is also important in the game. Players/people like things to make sense. This does not make sense.

What does your attacker do that prevents you from backing away?