I don't know if this question has come up before, but it's interesting.

One of the people in my gaming group had a question about base weapon damage. RAW states that ALL uncancelled success symbols add +1 to the base weapon damage. However, it was pointed out that this means that the weapons are always operating at a +1, and it was suggested that weapons deal only base damage with1 success and all other successes add bonus damage.

How does anyone else handle this? I have been using RAW and adding all successes to the damage, but this is an interesting point.

... the weapons are always operating at a +1

This is correct. It's simply easier to add net successes to the base damage, than always do base + successes -1.

Some people insist on changing it, so be aware if you do so that you're affecting the interaction between soak, armour, defense, etc.

it was suggested that weapons deal only base damage with1 success and all other successes add bonus damage.

I want to say this was a concept that was around for the beta and done away with for the CRB.

It's a single point of damage and does away with the tedious task of always having to subtract one from the net. In my opinion, a single point of damage is no reason to bog down the rolls, but as long as it is consistent I guess it's up to you how much you want to trouble with it.

It may have been easier to just list all weapons like they do for Melee Weapons as +X. i.e. Damage Rating + Successes = Damage.

One disappointing thing about this system is a lack of consistency in it's nomenclature and formulas. It's not a fatal flaw but it can be a bit annoying.

It may have been easier to just list all weapons like they do for Melee Weapons as +X. i.e. Damage Rating + Successes = Damage.

One disappointing thing about this system is a lack of consistency in it's nomenclature and formulas. It's not a fatal flaw but it can be a bit annoying.

But Melee weapons are written as +X because they are Brawn + X (+ net successes as usual). I would consider that consistent as it's different to ranged weapons (and lightsabers) where you don't need to add in an extra stat.

Thats fair.

It may have been easier to just list all weapons like they do for Melee Weapons as +X. i.e. Damage Rating + Successes = Damage.

One disappointing thing about this system is a lack of consistency in it's nomenclature and formulas. It's not a fatal flaw but it can be a bit annoying.

But Melee weapons are written as +X because they are Brawn + X (+ net successes as usual). I would consider that consistent as it's different to ranged weapons (and lightsabers) where you don't need to add in an extra stat.

That's a good point. Also, Brawn tends to be less than a weapon's base damage, so that makes sense.

On a related note, how much would subtracting 1 success affect soak, armor and defense?

That's a good point. Also, Brawn tends to be less than a weapon's base damage, so that makes sense.

On a related note, how much would subtracting 1 success affect soak, armor and defense?

Well one point of Damage can be the difference between a possible Critical and no Damage at all. So I would leave things as they are, especially if you have very high Soak PCs.

That's a good point. Also, Brawn tends to be less than a weapon's base damage, so that makes sense.

On a related note, how much would subtracting 1 success affect soak, armor and defense?

Well one point of Damage can be the difference between a possible Critical and no Damage at all. So I would leve things as they are, especially if you have very high Soak PCs.

True.

This helps a lot. Thanks!

it was suggested that weapons deal only base damage with1 success and all other successes add bonus damage.

I want to say this was a concept that was around for the beta and done away with for the CRB.

It's a single point of damage and does away with the tedious task of always having to subtract one from the net. In my opinion, a single point of damage is no reason to bog down the rolls, but as long as it is consistent I guess it's up to you how much you want to trouble with it.

It wasn't. They lowered the base damage in Beta, but it has been "uncancelled successes" in my EotE Beta copy. The confusion in Beta is the same as the OP here.

This is correct. It's simply easier to add net successes to the base damage, than always do base + successes -1.

Wait - you mean I've been doing the math wrong all this time? I thought it was, you're shooting with a 7 damage heavy blaster and roll 3 successes above and beyond everything else. Isn't the damage 10?

If you rolled a total of 4 successes and 1 failure then you have a net 3 successes. If your base damage is 7 then you do 10 points of damage.

This does mean a base damage 7 weapon will never actually do 7 damage, it's either a miss or you do 8+ (pre soak obviously).

This is correct. It's simply easier to add net successes to the base damage, than always do base + successes -1.

Wait - you mean I've been doing the math wrong all this time? I thought it was, you're shooting with a 7 damage heavy blaster and roll 3 successes above and beyond everything else. Isn't the damage 10?

Yes...isn't that what I said?

Yeah, but the -1 threw me off. I was all "Wait, where is the minus one coming from?!?"

This is correct. It's simply easier to add net successes to the base damage, than always do base + successes -1 .

Yeah, but the -1 threw me off. I was all "Wait, where is the minus one coming from?!?"

Because, for some reason, some people think that your first success gets burned up just hitting, and only the second and further successes add damage.

Yeah, but the -1 threw me off. I was all "Wait, where is the minus one coming from?!?"

Because, for some reason, some people think that your first success gets burned up just hitting, and only the second and further successes add damage.

Yeah, some people overthought the wording of the rules, heheh.

Yeah, I remember this from the days of the Beta, and it being discussed during one of Jay Little's appearances on the Order 66 podcast. Even the hosts of the time, Chris and Dave, had gotten it wrong and thought that the first success was burned to hit, and any successes left after that initial success added to damage.

For the EotE game I was in at the time, the GM's mind was largely blown at this particular revelation, though he did note that his bad guys did seem a tad more effective with that extra point of damage against the Trandoshan Marauder that was otherwise immune to small arms fire.

Yeah, I remember this from the days of the Beta, and it being discussed during one of Jay Little's appearances on the Order 66 podcast. Even the hosts of the time, Chris and Dave, had gotten it wrong and thought that the first success was burned to hit, and any successes left after that initial success added to damage.

For the EotE game I was in at the time, the GM's mind was largely blown at this particular revelation, though he did note that his bad guys did seem a tad more effective with that extra point of damage against the Trandoshan Marauder that was otherwise immune to small arms fire.

Yes, that was confusing my group too!

Yeah, but the -1 threw me off. I was all "Wait, where is the minus one coming from?!?"

Because, for some reason, some people think that your first success gets burned up just hitting, and only the second and further successes add damage.

Because, in many uses of skills, that's exactly the case. The first success means simply that: you succeeded. But you can use extra successes to make extra things happen or have it succeed to a greater degree. So that logic does have precedence.

Yeah, but the -1 threw me off. I was all "Wait, where is the minus one coming from?!?"

Because, for some reason, some people think that your first success gets burned up just hitting, and only the second and further successes add damage.

Because, in many uses of skills, that's exactly the case. The first success means simply that: you succeeded. But you can use extra successes to make extra things happen or have it succeed to a greater degree. So that logic does have precedence.

It is also the logic for a large number of other RPGs (like, my favorite, Burning Wheel - you tend to add successes AFTER the initial success for extra damage or effects or whatever; as I remember, Fate does it too).

Yeah, but the -1 threw me off. I was all "Wait, where is the minus one coming from?!?"

Because, for some reason, some people think that your first success gets burned up just hitting, and only the second and further successes add damage.

Because, in many uses of skills, that's exactly the case. The first success means simply that: you succeeded. But you can use extra successes to make extra things happen or have it succeed to a greater degree. So that logic does have precedence.

It is also the logic for a large number of other RPGs (like, my favorite, Burning Wheel - you tend to add successes AFTER the initial success for extra damage or effects or whatever; as I remember, Fate does it too).

Shadowrun, D&D, Warhammer, D6, Savage Worlds, etc... all don't do that.

NECROMANCY: Has this been officially clarified by FFG somewhere?

Yes

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/StarWarsRPG/edge-of-the-empire/support/SWE02_FAQ_LowRes.pdf

Thanks!

To mention the side issue of why it's done base damage + success, White Wolf's "Old" World of Darkness (the 1989 - 2003/4) games used the (base damage + uncancelled successes -1) system, explicitly because one success established the hit, and later ones increased it. They stopped using it with Exalted (1e), which significantly tightened up the WW rules set. My memory was the general consensus was that it was somewhat more confusing, and also kept the average damage of most attacks too close to average soak.