One problem I have with force slam being done with Bind is that it makes it a 'dark side' power- one that also requires tree mastery. With a fairly small XP investment a character can start using Move to do force slam on most opponents.

Going back to basics, Move can be used to do all of the move object and force slam stuff we see in the movies, Clone Wars, Rebels.

Bind can be used to do force crush like Vader, or whatever it is Luke does to the Gamorean guards in Jabba's palace.

The easiest way to fix this, from FFG's perspective, would be to have a "Force Push"-power in one of the splatbooks that handles this sort of thing specifically...

I'd like to go with Obi-Wan Force slamming droids to the ground in Episode I. If we use Discipline as the damage roll he'd have to had hit with a good amount of damage (I don't remember what stats battldroids have), as well as a successfully initiate auto-fire. That seems perfectly feasible to me. If that happens to be unreasonable, it could just be a flat 10 damage, plus successes. Thoughts?

So, I did the numbers on this — see my post at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-2#entry1900142

In short, not even Yoda could realistically hope to get enough damage with Force Move as written slamming the Royal Guards into the wall, unless you use the autofire rules. But then autofire doesn’t fit what we saw in that scene, and I submit it also wouldn’t fit slamming multiple droids into the ground — using one droid to hit multiple other droids, sure, but not multiple droids individually being slammed into the ground.

I’m still working on trying to find a suitable solution.

One problem I have with force slam being done with Bind is that it makes it a 'dark side' power- one that also requires tree mastery. With a fairly small XP investment a character can start using Move to do force slam on most opponents.

Going back to basics, Move can be used to do all of the move object and force slam stuff we see in the movies, Clone Wars, Rebels.

Bind can be used to do force crush like Vader, or whatever it is Luke does to the Gamorean guards in Jabba's palace.

I agree that bind doesnt really work thematically either, both for the reason you are describing and because the immobilization lasts too long.

This post;

See my followup at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/#entry1900552

Hint: the Imperial Royal Guards ain’t mamby-pamby Rivals, boyo.

I'd like to go with Obi-Wan Force slamming droids to the ground in Episode I. If we use Discipline as the damage roll he'd have to had hit with a good amount of damage (I don't remember what stats battldroids have), as well as a successfully initiate auto-fire. That seems perfectly feasible to me. If that happens to be unreasonable, it could just be a flat 10 damage, plus successes. Thoughts?

So, I did the numbers on this — see my post at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-2#entry1900142

In short, not even Yoda could realistically hope to get enough damage with Force Move as written slamming the Royal Guards into the wall, unless you use the autofire rules. But then autofire doesn’t fit what we saw in that scene, and I submit it also wouldn’t fit slamming multiple droids into the ground — using one droid to hit multiple other droids, sure, but not multiple droids individually being slammed into the ground.

I’m still working on trying to find a suitable solution.

Did you include 2 upgrades to the attack roll for sense? cause I am sure Yoda had enough to force rating to be able to have sense offense and defense going at the same time as throwing large objects around with ease.

Did you include 2 upgrades to the attack roll for sense? cause I am sure Yoda had enough to force rating to be able to have sense offense and defense going at the same time as throwing large objects around with ease.

I used the dice pool as described by “InSilence” at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-2#entry1900090

But make sure you also check out my follow-up article on this subject, at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-3#entry1900552

For me, that basically answers all my questions on the subject. I’ve done the math, twice. And I am now fully satisfied with the results that I have achieved.

Did you include 2 upgrades to the attack roll for sense? cause I am sure Yoda had enough to force rating to be able to have sense offense and defense going at the same time as throwing large objects around with ease.

I used the dice pool as described by “InSilence” at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-2#entry1900090

But make sure you also check out my follow-up article on this subject, at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-3#entry1900552

For me, that basically answers all my questions on the subject. I’ve done the math, twice. And I am now fully satisfied with the results that I have achieved.

Then I would say do it again and upgrade the check twice. probably change the results a bit. I mean he is a grand master of the jedi order. so I am sure he has plenty force dice to upgrade his attacks with sense.

Then I would say do it again and upgrade the check twice. probably change the results a bit. I mean he is a grand master of the jedi order. so I am sure he has plenty force dice to upgrade his attacks with sense.

I think we’ve given Yoda enough bonus and boost dice. But if you do the double upgrade that you insist on, it still doesn’t change the math dramatically. The numbers are a little better for him, yes. But it’s not a whole world of difference.

Hint: Adding dice makes more of a difference than upgrading dice.

AshesFall, on 19 Nov 2015 - 1:32 PM, said:

There are so many issues with the blanket application of move to affect characters, most of them are pointed out in this thread both by me and others. I definitely agree that the developers hand wave solution to use the move power that way smacks of "oh ****, we forgot" and completely ignores all those problems, both thematically and mechanically. The widely disparaged "you can levitate with the move power" ruling just goes to show that the GMs dont always make good decisions. Fortunately, there are house rules to fix problems when that happens.

I feel something had been misunderstood here. The Devs never say you could levitate/fly by yourself with move. They said you could lift a large object where you were standing on to fly. I know: small difference but still.

I stand by the fact this needs to be looked at by the developers more closely. There are multiple threads about this with good points on all sides. This isn't an argument of "I don't agree with X", it's a problem of level-headed fans of the system arguing "X doesn't work and here's why..." and in most cases being correct.

They also need to tackle anti-armor ordnance.

A lot of stuff depends on how you skin them. As a GM do you want a speed bump that makes the characters look like a bad ass. Minion. Do you want a little bit of a challenge that uses some resources rival. Do you want a bit of a boss fight or lieutenant nemesis.

Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:

I stand by the fact this needs to be looked at by the developers more closely. There are multiple threads about this with good points on all sides. This isn't an argument of "I don't agree with X", it's a problem of level-headed fans of the system arguing "X doesn't work and here's why..." and in most cases being correct.

They also need to tackle anti-armor ordnance.

The problem that lead to this kind of thread is not "X doesnt work", it is GM coming here and complaining that their players destroy their encounter by throwing their Nemésis by the window or lift it in the air with Move.

If you cannot make your player understand it is morality wrong to do so or you cannot accept Force users are supposed to be better than average Joe, you should run campaign in one of the other 2 setting of this rpg instead.

Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:

I stand by the fact this needs to be looked at by the developers more closely. There are multiple threads about this with good points on all sides. This isn't an argument of "I don't agree with X", it's a problem of level-headed fans of the system arguing "X doesn't work and here's why..." and in most cases being correct.

They also need to tackle anti-armor ordnance.

The problem that lead to this kind of thread is not "X doesnt work", it is GM coming here and complaining that their players destroy their encounter by throwing their Nemésis by the window or lift it in the air with Move.

If you cannot make your player understand it is morality wrong to do so or you cannot accept Force users are supposed to be better than average Joe, you should run campaign in one of the other 2 setting of this rpg instead.

Both force grip and force push are actually the -Bind- force power. Yeah. Really!

Ha! This is exactly what I said when F&D beta came out. I got a load of people telling me I was wrong, it's good to find someone who thinks the same. I think people get hung-up on what they expect a power to be, rather than looking at the actual effect and working backwards. EotE/AoR/FaD take a narrative rules approach. I.e. they focus on determining outcome and allowing you to narrate how you got there rather than focus on effects directly and telling you how to work forwards to results. Simplest example is Brawl. You don't, like first edition WoD or early WHFRP, attempt "a kick" or determine that you scored "a hit with your longsword" and then use this to work out how much damage you do. You roll your dice, find you've done X damage and then decide if you scored a glancing blow with your fist or ran them through with your blade, etc.

Force rules are the same, in this game. Calculate the result (or what powers you need to achieve that result in this case), and then work backwards to find what you did. Bind as Force Push works beautifully and was immediately how I saw it. Throwing people direct into the air? Not a problem - Move tells you how much damage you can do with the relevant upgrade so you determine that and work backwards - only manage 5 points of damage then no, you didn't throw them 40m into the air, you maybe only managed 4m or they were able to grab onto a tree branch or something. I find a lot of problems come from people ignoring the Narrative approach of the rules system and trying to fix specific effects to something and work forwards. It's the eternal case of "I specifically aim for his head" where a player tries to incorporate the result into the attempt. No, you shoot at him and if you score lots of damage THEN you can tell me you shot him in the head. It's similar with the Force rules. Bind neatly covers Force Push results, and so that's how I would often narrate it.

It is even in the first post of the developer answered questions.

That is cool. I missed that. Thank you. I looked at the downloadable errata a while back, that's it.

As far as damage goes, it makes sense that hitting a Sil 1 object with a Sil 4 object causes 40 points of damage to the Sil 1 object. However, as I mentioned before, why would you cause more damage to say, a rancor, merely because it's larger? If anything, it should be harder to Force slam it effectively. Again, if I can muster enough power to harm a rancor, why can't I call upon that same level of power to paste a few stormtroopers? It simply makes no sense to me.

Finally, people being objects isn't clear. If it were, this would't come up again and again. I'm not arguing the definition, just that it's not the generally accepted wording in an RPG. Honestly, it makes no difference as it's been clarified. I'm debating just to debate.

Inertia.

Inertia from what? The casual flick of a wrist?

When you start an object moving at speed. It tends keep moving. The more mass the more it wants to keep moving. So when you hurl a larger object it will tend to want to keep moving. Whatever is in front of it will tend to get squished.

I'm going to allow myself some measure of rudeness and say, "Please, pay attention!" I've mentioned, more than once, that I'm not covering moving objects. Force slam...the use of PURE FORCE ENERGY ALONE...doesn't work in any logical way with the RAW in Move.

Take the IR-F Class Light Frigate; Sil 5, Armor 3, HT 40. By the RAW, you would cause 50 points of damage with a Force slam (again, NOT throwing it or something at it...pure, Force energy). Subtract 30 for the Armor, leaving you with 20 points of damage, causing 2 HT. You have now damaged (if ever so slightly) a frigate with nothing more than a telekinetic slam. It makes no sense. Add in the potential to do things such as throw the Millenium Falcon and Move, as written and with the developer's clarification, is a quagmire compared to the rest of the mechanics.

I love the game and have been a huge supporter of it, however in this regard I feel it falls short. Sure, there's the argument to use common sense, however we've seen many examples of the Force, especially Move, allow for extremely over-the-top actions. Couple that with "Space magic!" and common sense becomes more difficult to apply. I'm fine with the narrative adjudication of dice results as the base mechanics are very solid, but the rules for Move stress that solid base for me.

I have a question on this. Where did the idea that one can do a "Force Slam" that isn't about actually moving one thing into another but is rather about just using raw telekinetic force to 'punch' someone come from? I ask because I cannot currently recall someone doing such a "Force slam". Numerous incidences of people or droids being hurled into walls, chairs, etc. And of course force choking / crushing. But Move has always seemed to generate the movement by the object itself just acquiring momentum, not a result of some unseen impact upon it. E.g. I can see someone sending a battle droid back through the air with Force Move. I don't visualize them putting a dent in the front of that battle droid through the Move power.

Genuine question - is there some canon scene that informs this view because if not, it may side-step the above issue? Closest I can think of right now is Yoda incapacitating the two guards before the duel with Sidious. That's a little ambiguous what was actually done there. It may not need to be represented with the Move power.

Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:

I stand by the fact this needs to be looked at by the developers more closely. There are multiple threads about this with good points on all sides. This isn't an argument of "I don't agree with X", it's a problem of level-headed fans of the system arguing "X doesn't work and here's why..." and in most cases being correct.

They also need to tackle anti-armor ordnance.

The problem that lead to this kind of thread is not "X doesnt work", it is GM coming here and complaining that their players destroy their encounter by throwing their Nemésis by the window or lift it in the air with Move.

If you cannot make your player understand it is morality wrong to do so or you cannot accept Force users are supposed to be better than average Joe, you should run campaign in one of the other 2 setting of this rpg instead.

This doesn't work for me. It's a personal take but I don't see why a player should get Conflict for throwing a person up into the air and letting them fall but not for, say, stabbing that person with a lightsabre or shooting them with a blaster. For me, using Conflict as a way to stop people exploiting the Move power feels wrong. It's one reason why I'm happy with what I think is the intended and rules-consistent approach of just starting with the damage dealt and using that to determine whether or not someone has just been thrown 50m in the air.

Of course you can give Conflict for stabbing people with lightsabres and shooting them with blasters, but if you do, you're going to be altering the default expectations of most Star Wars games, I think.

Did you include 2 upgrades to the attack roll for sense? cause I am sure Yoda had enough to force rating to be able to have sense offense and defense going at the same time as throwing large objects around with ease.

I used the dice pool as described by “InSilence” at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-2#entry1900090

But make sure you also check out my follow-up article on this subject, at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-3#entry1900552

For me, that basically answers all my questions on the subject. I’ve done the math, twice. And I am now fully satisfied with the results that I have achieved.

Then I would say do it again and upgrade the check twice. probably change the results a bit. I mean he is a grand master of the jedi order. so I am sure he has plenty force dice to upgrade his attacks with sense.

Did you include 2 upgrades to the attack roll for sense? cause I am sure Yoda had enough to force rating to be able to have sense offense and defense going at the same time as throwing large objects around with ease.

I used the dice pool as described by “InSilence” at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-2#entry1900090

But make sure you also check out my follow-up article on this subject, at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/page-3#entry1900552

For me, that basically answers all my questions on the subject. I’ve done the math, twice. And I am now fully satisfied with the results that I have achieved.

Interesting. I hadn't realized that our discussion in that other thread was being used as a reference elsewhere. I think the same misconception applies so I'll restate here. You're using medium-bad (as opposed to big bad) nemesis characters as they were printed in FaD for royal guards and then drawing from a scene in Episode III with the assumption they must be the same (and represented the same) to conclude that it should be possible to dish out 26 points of damage with Move because Yoda one-shots the two guards in the movie.

I don't think the two guards should be taken as the stat blocks in FaD. To me, they would be Minions. It's a common misconception that Minion / Rival / Nemesis is about power levels. It's actually about streamlining and narrative implications. A minion can be very dangerous. A nemesis might actually not be that dangerous sometimes. What the rules do is ensure that for faceless and uniform (as in the same stats) opponents, a GM is not tracking lots of semi-injured opponents or status effects; and that conversely someone with a name and backstory gets their shot at decent dialogue / escaping / interesting outcomes. It's not about power levels, it's about their role in the story. As a Narrative rules system, that's key to how they should be used. A storm trooper with a blaster rifle might be a minion and yet more dangerous than Scruffy the Spaceport Urchin who picks your pockets. But the trooper's role is to be mind-tricked or shot and then fall down. Scruffy may not be combat effective but they should get their chance to be stunned instead of killed, roll away into an air-duct and return another day, and so forth.

As an example, I wrote up the xenomorphs from the Alien series for someone on these boards a while ago. I did two versions of the drone - a Nemesis version for the first film, and a Minion version for the Aliens sequel. (It's here if anyone is interested: http://1drv.ms/1FwDLTV). Is the Minion version less powerful than the Nemesis version? Yes, it's a bit weaker naturally. But it's still terrifyingly deadly. The largest difference is that the Minion version is either up on its feet being a scary threat, or it's down and out and you're moving on. The Minion version is still perfectly capable of doing damage, still tough enough that it may shrug off petty damage, but it's not the point of the scene that it appears in and when you do take it down, it goes down, not lingers around making heroic last efforts.

So apologies for the long-diversion (and especially to anyone who is following the other thread where I made the same point), but bringing this back to Yoda one-shotting Royal Guards, if you were the GM putting that scene together you would probably be best suited crafting those guards as Minions. They're not named people who should be "okay, this one has a broken arm now, but he struggles back to his feet" and more "there are still two guards attacking you". Sidious is the point of the scene, not the guards.

Nemesis tends to correlate with powerful because named and interesting people in an RPG are typically more powerful than nameless undifferentiated people. But it's actually about giving them the right level of detail to be interesting in a narrative. Arbitrarily sticking the Nemesis stats on two guards on screen and then deciding this means you should be able to do 26 points of damage with the Move power (let alone as an average result) is probably a very bad idea.

Minions = identical stats, limited story significance.

Rival = not rank and file, different stats for some reason, but not a main / focus character in a story

Nemesis = unique individual, special significance in the story.

I've actually had a rival in the game become more significant than I expected and they then started using Nemesis rules. I realize this is all something of a tangent but it's something I see crop up a fair bit and if that scene is being used as a basis for what the Move power should be able to do, I think it's probably best cleared up.

It is even in the first post of the developer answered questions.

That is cool. I missed that. Thank you. I looked at the downloadable errata a while back, that's it.As far as damage goes, it makes sense that hitting a Sil 1 object with a Sil 4 object causes 40 points of damage to the Sil 1 object. However, as I mentioned before, why would you cause more damage to say, a rancor, merely because it's larger? If anything, it should be harder to Force slam it effectively. Again, if I can muster enough power to harm a rancor, why can't I call upon that same level of power to paste a few stormtroopers? It simply makes no sense to me.Finally, people being objects isn't clear. If it were, this would't come up again and again. I'm not arguing the definition, just that it's not the generally accepted wording in an RPG. Honestly, it makes no difference as it's been clarified. I'm debating just to debate.

Inertia.

Inertia from what? The casual flick of a wrist?

When you start an object moving at speed. It tends keep moving. The more mass the more it wants to keep moving. So when you hurl a larger object it will tend to want to keep moving. Whatever is in front of it will tend to get squished.

I'm going to allow myself some measure of rudeness and say, "Please, pay attention!" I've mentioned, more than once, that I'm not covering moving objects. Force slam...the use of PURE FORCE ENERGY ALONE...doesn't work in any logical way with the RAW in Move.Take the IR-F Class Light Frigate; Sil 5, Armor 3, HT 40. By the RAW, you would cause 50 points of damage with a Force slam (again, NOT throwing it or something at it...pure, Force energy). Subtract 30 for the Armor, leaving you with 20 points of damage, causing 2 HT. You have now damaged (if ever so slightly) a frigate with nothing more than a telekinetic slam. It makes no sense. Add in the potential to do things such as throw the Millenium Falcon and Move, as written and with the developer's clarification, is a quagmire compared to the rest of the mechanics.I love the game and have been a huge supporter of it, however in this regard I feel it falls short. Sure, there's the argument to use common sense, however we've seen many examples of the Force, especially Move, allow for extremely over-the-top actions. Couple that with "Space magic!" and common sense becomes more difficult to apply. I'm fine with the narrative adjudication of dice results as the base mechanics are very solid, but the rules for Move stress that solid base for me.

I have a question on this. Where did the idea that one can do a "Force Slam" that isn't about actually moving one thing into another but is rather about just using raw telekinetic force to 'punch' someone come from? I ask because I cannot currently recall someone doing such a "Force slam". Numerous incidences of people or droids being hurled into walls, chairs, etc. And of course force choking / crushing. But Move has always seemed to generate the movement by the object itself just acquiring momentum, not a result of some unseen impact upon it. E.g. I can see someone sending a battle droid back through the air with Force Move. I don't visualize them putting a dent in the front of that battle droid through the Move power.Genuine question - is there some canon scene that informs this view because if not, it may side-step the above issue? Closest I can think of right now is Yoda incapacitating the two guards before the duel with Sidious. That's a little ambiguous what was actually done there. It may not need to be represented with the Move power.

Obi-Wan knocks down a few droids on Naboo in Episode I (I'll watch it again to make sure I'm not misremembering!). One could say they hit the ground and that's what damaged them, but to me that's really reaching. There are also a LOT of instances in TCW.

Telekinesis is a tough nut to crack in a Star Wars game. Do you go with the OT? Shows? Books? Comics? Video games? Even if you take all of them into account, there's an issue of how much they split. FFG has done an amazing job with the Force and in the end, if you look at it positively, all of these debates just help us polish the game to our liking.

I feel something had been misunderstood here. The Devs never say you could levitate/fly by yourself with move. They said you could lift a large object where you were standing on to fly. I know: small difference but still.

The hard rule of thumb seems to be you cannot pick yourself up. Otherwise the Jedi would have flying vests where they just picked up the bobble attached to the harness and float themselves around.

This is why I use the fulcrum metaphor. If the force is the lever you use to move things, the force user is the fulcrum on which it is based. If the fulcrum doesn't have a solid base the lever is useless.

I have a question on this. Where did the idea that one can do a "Force Slam" that isn't about actually moving one thing into another but is rather about just using raw telekinetic force to 'punch' someone come from? I ask because I cannot currently recall someone doing such a "Force slam". Numerous incidences of people or droids being hurled into walls, chairs, etc. And of course force choking / crushing. But Move has always seemed to generate the movement by the object itself just acquiring momentum, not a result of some unseen impact upon it. E.g. I can see someone sending a battle droid back through the air with Force Move. I don't visualize them putting a dent in the front of that battle droid through the Move power.Genuine question - is there some canon scene that informs this view because if not, it may side-step the above issue? Closest I can think of right now is Yoda incapacitating the two guards before the duel with Sidious. That's a little ambiguous what was actually done there. It may not need to be represented with the Move power.

Obi-Wan knocks down a few droids on Naboo in Episode I (I'll watch it again to make sure I'm not misremembering!). One could say they hit the ground and that's what damaged them, but to me that's really reaching. There are also a LOT of instances in TCW.

Sure - we've all seen countless instances of Jedi throwing droids and people back through the air. My point is where did you get the idea that it's from some impact-style strike come from. What I see when Luke lifts some stones with his mind, or Anakin sends a battle droid flying backwards or whatever, is the object gains momentum in some mysterious way because through the Force the object itself moves. As opposed to there being some invisible impact that strikes them and sends them flying. It's the difference between falling - gravity causes everything to just suddenly accelerate vs. being kicked in the gut which sends you pin-wheeling backwards. I've never visualised the Force in this latter way, only the former. It doesn't fit for me that when a Jedi sent someone hurtling backwards they would have a massive bruise on their chest where the impact of the Force hit them. Damage from being thrown about has always looked to me to be from being thrown into something.

Hence you questioning of how to implement a "Force slap" sounded odd. I wondered if there were some instance I had missed where the Force was visibly working in the "invisible fist" manner rather than the "it just moves" manner.

I feel something had been misunderstood here. The Devs never say you could levitate/fly by yourself with move. They said you could lift a large object where you were standing on to fly. I know: small difference but still.

The problem is we know this is not true. In Episode III Yoda and Palpatine are throwing the senate pods at each other. All good. But then Palapatune brings out the Force Lightening, Yoda counters it, and they are both blown backwards and left dangling from pods. This tells us two things. First, neither could levitate themselves, as they would have done so rather than risk falling. But second, neither did they levitate the pods to support them, which means they couldn't do that either.

The hard rule of thumb seems to be you cannot pick yourself up. Otherwise the Jedi would have flying vests where they just picked up the bobble attached to the harness and flew themselves around.

This is why I use the fulcrum metaphor. If the force is the lever you use to move things, the force user is the fulcrum on which it is based. If the fulcrum doesn't have a solid base the lever is useless.

I like that. I think there are simply too many occasions where we would have seen a flying jedi if this were a thing. The only occasion we have ever seen this, is Yoda and then it is specifically when he is deeply meditating and it is specifically the most powerful Jedi leader of the order who does it. It really seems to be a very, very special and non-actiony sort of thing, imo.

There are definitely some implicit rules to the Force that seem to be adhered to even though not spelled out. Another is that it seems to take some focus and control to actually use the Force to move things and the more delicate or extreme, the less a Jedi can just do it as an impulse. Witness the amount of times a Jedi will grab someone's hand to stop them falling. Why not just use the Force? Because when you're sliding down the roof of the senate building and Padmé is about to go off the edge, Anakin finds it a lot easier and faster to grab her wrist than to go "okay, find your centre, sense your girlfriend and...". A sudden uncontrolled throw of a battle droid? You can do that fast. Lifting someone who is falling from a cliff? Less easy.

It is even in the first post of the developer answered questions.

That is cool. I missed that. Thank you. I looked at the downloadable errata a while back, that's it.

As far as damage goes, it makes sense that hitting a Sil 1 object with a Sil 4 object causes 40 points of damage to the Sil 1 object. However, as I mentioned before, why would you cause more damage to say, a rancor, merely because it's larger? If anything, it should be harder to Force slam it effectively. Again, if I can muster enough power to harm a rancor, why can't I call upon that same level of power to paste a few stormtroopers? It simply makes no sense to me.

Finally, people being objects isn't clear. If it were, this would't come up again and again. I'm not arguing the definition, just that it's not the generally accepted wording in an RPG. Honestly, it makes no difference as it's been clarified. I'm debating just to debate.

Inertia.

Inertia from what? The casual flick of a wrist?

When you start an object moving at speed. It tends keep moving. The more mass the more it wants to keep moving. So when you hurl a larger object it will tend to want to keep moving. Whatever is in front of it will tend to get squished.

I'm going to allow myself some measure of rudeness and say, "Please, pay attention!" I've mentioned, more than once, that I'm not covering moving objects. Force slam...the use of PURE FORCE ENERGY ALONE...doesn't work in any logical way with the RAW in Move.

Take the IR-F Class Light Frigate; Sil 5, Armor 3, HT 40. By the RAW, you would cause 50 points of damage with a Force slam (again, NOT throwing it or something at it...pure, Force energy). Subtract 30 for the Armor, leaving you with 20 points of damage, causing 2 HT. You have now damaged (if ever so slightly) a frigate with nothing more than a telekinetic slam. It makes no sense. Add in the potential to do things such as throw the Millenium Falcon and Move, as written and with the developer's clarification, is a quagmire compared to the rest of the mechanics.

I love the game and have been a huge supporter of it, however in this regard I feel it falls short. Sure, there's the argument to use common sense, however we've seen many examples of the Force, especially Move, allow for extremely over-the-top actions. Couple that with "Space magic!" and common sense becomes more difficult to apply. I'm fine with the narrative adjudication of dice results as the base mechanics are very solid, but the rules for Move stress that solid base for me.

I have a question on this. Where did the idea that one can do a "Force Slam" that isn't about actually moving one thing into another but is rather about just using raw telekinetic force to 'punch' someone come from? I ask because I cannot currently recall someone doing such a "Force slam". Numerous incidences of people or droids being hurled into walls, chairs, etc. And of course force choking / crushing. But Move has always seemed to generate the movement by the object itself just acquiring momentum, not a result of some unseen impact upon it. E.g. I can see someone sending a battle droid back through the air with Force Move. I don't visualize them putting a dent in the front of that battle droid through the Move power.

Genuine question - is there some canon scene that informs this view because if not, it may side-step the above issue? Closest I can think of right now is Yoda incapacitating the two guards before the duel with Sidious. That's a little ambiguous what was actually done there. It may not need to be represented with the Move power.

Yoda slammed them into the wall behind them.

Alderaan Crumbs, on 21 Nov 2015 - 04:24 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 21 Nov 2015 - 04:24 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 21 Nov 2015 - 04:24 AM, said:

vilainn6, on 20 Nov 2015 - 5:51 PM, said:vilainn6, on 20 Nov 2015 - 5:51 PM, said:vilainn6, on 20 Nov 2015 - 5:51 PM, said:

Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:

Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:

I stand by the fact this needs to be looked at by the developers more closely. There are multiple threads about this with good points on all sides. This isn't an argument of "I don't agree with X", it's a problem of level-headed fans of the system arguing "X doesn't work and here's why..." and in most cases being correct.

They also need to tackle anti-armor ordnance.

The problem that lead to this kind of thread is not "X doesnt work", it is GM coming here and complaining that their players destroy their encounter by throwing their Nemésis by the window or lift it in the air with Move.

If you cannot make your player understand it is morality wrong to do so or you cannot accept Force users are supposed to be better than average Joe, you should run campaign in one of the other 2 setting of this rpg instead.

This isn't about abusive players or ruined encounters, it's about people who know and love the game finding a flaw in the rules for an iconic aspect of the Force.

knasserII, on 21 Nov 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:knasserII, on 21 Nov 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:knasserII, on 21 Nov 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

vilainn6, on 20 Nov 2015 - 5:51 PM, said:vilainn6, on 20 Nov 2015 - 5:51 PM, said:knasserII, on 21 Nov 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:knasserII, on 21 Nov 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 20 Nov 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:

I stand by the fact this needs to be looked at by the developers more closely. There are multiple threads about this with good points on all sides. This isn't an argument of "I don't agree with X", it's a problem of level-headed fans of the system arguing "X doesn't work and here's why..." and in most cases being correct.

They also need to tackle anti-armor ordnance.

The problem that lead to this kind of thread is not "X doesnt work", it is GM coming here and complaining that their players destroy their encounter by throwing their Nemésis by the window or lift it in the air with Move.

If you cannot make your player understand it is morality wrong to do so or you cannot accept Force users are supposed to be better than average Joe, you should run campaign in one of the other 2 setting of this rpg instead.

This doesn't work for me. It's a personal take but I don't see why a player should get Conflict for throwing a person up into the air and letting them fall but not for, say, stabbing that person with a lightsabre or shooting them with a blaster. For me, using Conflict as a way to stop people exploiting the Move power feels wrong. It's one reason why I'm happy with what I think is the intended and rules-consistent approach of just starting with the damage dealt and using that to determine whether or not someone has just been thrown 50m in the air.

Of course you can give Conflict for stabbing people with lightsabres and shooting them with blasters, but if you do, you're going to be altering the default expectations of most Star Wars games, I think.

If for you, a force user need a Force rating of 2, the need to immobilize and maybe crush someone if he use dark pipe, to move it, then it is your choice. For myself, I will continue using the rules as written. Move can move people as much as Bind can do it.

Stabbing, shooting, or hurling someone in a wall to defend yourself is one thing. Lifting someone 50m in the air and letting him fall is another thing as immoral as slauthering dangerous people like Tusken riders because they kill your mother.

Activating Move, with 1 Strength and the Slam control, and rolling 3 successes, you can take out 4 battle droids. Activatte Magnatude once and you can take out 8.

Why? Because battle droids are minions. Throw Droid from Group 1 at Droid from Group 2, doing 14 to each. 14 points of damage is more than battledroids can take, so the damage rolls over to a second battledroid and takes it out as well.

My own fix to move is to say each strength upgrade only counts itself and acan only be activated once each. Picking up a freighter takes 4 strength upgrades and 4 Additional pips- an investment worthy of doing starship scale damage.

(I also nerf weapons and armor on sil 4 or less vehicals, so when said superjedi throws 1 freighter at another it can actually scratch the paint.