Quick question for some of the older more experienced GMs out there. What do training sabers look like when activated? Do they "look" like regular lightsabers in every way, except that they do stun damage?

Also, can a training saber be used for Parry and Deflect without penalties? For some reason, I have it stuck in my head that the reduced power of the saber may prevent it from being quite as effective when parrying and deflecting blaster bolts.

Quick question for some of the older more experienced GMs out there. What do training sabers look like when activated? Do they "look" like regular lightsabers in every way, except that they do stun damage?

Also, can a training saber be used for Parry and Deflect without penalties? For some reason, I have it stuck in my head that the reduced power of the saber may prevent it from being quite as effective when parrying and deflecting blaster bolts.

As written, they don't have any effect on Parry or Reflect. They also 'look' like real sabers, though I imagine someone with high ranks in Lightsaber could recognize that it's a training saber with a cursory inspection.

As portrayed in the films:

Pretty darn close to the real thing.

As portrayed in the films:

Pretty darn close to the real thing.

Assuming those are training sabers.

Which they probably are, but I prefer to believe they aren't, mostly because I'm a terrible person who laughs while thinking about younglings losing fingers and ears....

As portrayed in the films:

Pretty darn close to the real thing.

Assuming those are training sabers.

Which they probably are, but I prefer to believe they aren't, mostly because I'm a terrible person who laughs while thinking about younglings losing fingers and ears....

That happens later.

I actually prefer to think of training sabers like those in SWTOR. More like Bokan /Stunrod. It is a stick that stuns that resembles a lightsaber, but when it is turned off, it still looks like a technological stick. The way our group sees it, a lightsaber is science/magic and plasma, making that into a stun beam just doesn't make sense to us. But that works for our group. I can easily see that not working in other groups.

Since the hilt from a training lightsaber can still be used once the PC acquires a proper lightsaber crystal, I'd say that Away's post is 100% on the money.

If you read the description of the training lightsaber in the book, it all but says that it's a basic lightsaber hilt using the training emitter attachment.

Nope those are real lightsabers, because we all know every Jedi Master in the prequels was heavily dosing themselves with poor judgement and intelligence reducing meds.

I just have a hard time imagining a lightsaber that's so weak it can't harm a person, as being capable of the same feats of deflection and parry as a proper lightsaber. I may introduce a small penalty to parry and deflection, justified by the low power version training saber simply being overpowered.

Nope those are real lightsabers, because we all know every Jedi Master in the prequels was heavily dosing themselves with poor judgement and intelligence reducing meds.

I just have a hard time imagining a lightsaber that's so weak it can't harm a person, as being capable of the same feats of deflection and parry as a proper lightsaber. I may introduce a small penalty to parry and deflection, justified by the low power version training saber simply being overpowered.

Unnecessary.

The training lightsaber being so "weak" in terms of damage has a techno-babble explanation in place, and can be read over on Wookieepedia.

In terms of the game, it's there to let the players that really want a lightsaber at character creation have one, but without having to nerf the lightsaber so badly that it doesn't completely outshine any other weapon that's normally available at character creation. WotC did the "nerf the lightsaber!" approach in their Star Wars games so that Jedi PCs could start with one, with many upon many complaints of how weak a lightsaber was.

Since regular melee weapons can make use of the Parry talent just fine, adding a penalty there for using a training lightsaber is just piss-poor GMing. And while reflect requires an actual Lightsaber weapon (not just a weapon that uses the Lightsaber skill), the fact that the LS Form specs can be taken at character creation and two of them have Reflect as Row 1 talents means a player that wants to take those talents but only has a training lightsaber is getting shafted, which again is piss-poor GMing.

I just have a hard time imagining a lightsaber that's so weak it can't harm a person, as being capable of the same feats of deflection and parry as a proper lightsaber. I may introduce a small penalty to parry and deflection, justified by the low power version training saber simply being overpowered.

Unnecessary.

The training lightsaber being so "weak" in terms of damage has a techno-babble explanation in place, and can be read over on Wookieepedia.

In terms of the game, it's there to let the players that really want a lightsaber at character creation have one, but without having to nerf the lightsaber so badly that it doesn't completely outshine any other weapon that's normally available at character creation. WotC did the "nerf the lightsaber!" approach in their Star Wars games so that Jedi PCs could start with one, with many upon many complaints of how weak a lightsaber was.

Since regular melee weapons can make use of the Parry talent just fine, adding a penalty there for using a training lightsaber is just piss-poor GMing. And while reflect requires an actual Lightsaber weapon (not just a weapon that uses the Lightsaber skill), the fact that the LS Form specs can be taken at character creation and two of them have Reflect as Row 1 talents means a player that wants to take those talents but only has a training lightsaber is getting shafted, which again is piss-poor GMing.

Wow, you really have a bad attitude. I could explain how no one started with a lightsaber (or even as a Force Sensitive for that matter). I could explain how lightsaber forms are a non-issue at this point in the campaign. I could explain what's happening with the dynamics of our story, and then you would likely have an "oh well I guess my comments don't make sense in this case" moment. However, your "piss-poor" comments leave me unwilling to enlighten such a close-minded person at this time. If you can't make your points respectfully, I have no reason to explain and/or even consider your comments.

If a Training Lightsaber can not be used with Reflect, what the hell do they actually use to train that ability?

Training Lightsabers work with Reflect and Parry like all other Lightsabers. Only the Ancient Sword loses this ability (because it is not a Lightsaber, although personally I feel it should, with Cortosis and Sith Alchemy being a thing. Hell, even the Talisman of Iron Fist should allow it, in my eyes.)

If a Training Lightsaber can not be used with Reflect, what the hell do they actually use to train that ability?

Training Lightsabers work with Reflect and Parry like all other Lightsabers. Only the Ancient Sword loses this ability (because it is not a Lightsaber, although personally I feel it should, with Cortosis and Sith Alchemy being a thing. Hell, even the Talisman of Iron Fist should allow it, in my eyes.)

Oh it's not that it can't be used to Reflect. It's that the specific saber my group found is.... not a traditional training saber. I probably should have elaborated earlier on, and it's the reason I wanted to confirm that traditional training sabers were identical (pure energy blade) to regular sabers. What my group has found is technically an ancient training protosaber (external powerpack and all). Quick backstory is they discovered an ancient Jedi temple (one of the characters is big on the explorer, archaeologist field), and found several artifacts inside. One of which is the training protosaber. Regardless, it can both Parry and Reflect as a lightsaber and/or training saber can. It's just not quite as good at it for several reasons, the obvious being it's an ancient relic that in all likelihood is no longer function at peak performance.

Like I said, probably should have elaborated more earlier, but I was being rushed when I made the comment about penalties.

TalosX,

Frankly, your comments came in regards to applying a completely arbitrary penalty to using Parry and Reflect with a training lightsaber were quite frankly even worse of a "bad attitude." You gave incomplete information, and then got your knickers in a twist when you got called out on it.

But hey, if you don't like the concept of training lightsabers, then just say for your game that such items don't exist.

But as was noted, if you read the rules on the Parry talent, perfectly ordinary melee weapons such as a lowly truncheon can be used for the Parry talent without any penalty. So once again, it makes zero sense to apply a penalty to use Parry to a training 'saber, and reeks more of the GM being petty because he doesn't like an element of setting.

TalosX,

Frankly, your comments came in regards to applying a completely arbitrary penalty to using Parry and Reflect with a training lightsaber were quite frankly even worse of a "bad attitude." You gave incomplete information, and then got your knickers in a twist when you got called out on it.

But hey, if you don't like the concept of training lightsabers, then just say for your game that such items don't exist.

But as was noted, if you read the rules on the Parry talent, perfectly ordinary melee weapons such as a lowly truncheon can be used for the Parry talent without any penalty. So once again, it makes zero sense to apply a penalty to use Parry to a training 'saber, and reeks more of the GM being petty because he doesn't like an element of setting.

If you feel you've "called me out" on something, I find it amusing. You applied a highly opinionated comment without knowing hardly any backstory. I admit that I should have provided more detail, but I was being rushed. I hit "post" with the intent that I could come and flesh out the comment in an hour or so when I returned, but life tends to sideline things at times. I take responsibility for that mistake, and will endeavor not to do so again. The fact that you chose to attack my point of view rather then try and understand or even dissuade hints at an extremely arrogant character. Rest assured though, my knickers are quite "untwisted". I haven't the time to worry over silly people posting crass comments online. My players like me as a GM. They must, since I seem to be the first person they always try to talk into running their games (even when I have no previous knowledge of the system). I've gamed in several cities across the country (military peeps move) and have never once been accused of being unfair or "a piss-poor GM"! Having gamed with at least 40 different people over the years, I'm sure someone would have said something.

Since it's obvious we don't see eye-to-eye. The mature thing at this point is to simply agree to disagree. I'll thank you for your input, and kindly ask that you not weigh in further as you've made your opinion quite clear. Thank you for your time.

Fight fight fight fight

Rules pretty clear on reflect vs parry here. Training sabers are up to gm and player how they want it to look /feel the game is narrative remember it's about enjoying the game and sometimes you just have to have your house rules to have fun.

TalosX,

Frankly, your comments came in regards to applying a completely arbitrary penalty to using Parry and Reflect with a training lightsaber were quite frankly even worse of a "bad attitude." You gave incomplete information, and then got your knickers in a twist when you got called out on it.

But hey, if you don't like the concept of training lightsabers, then just say for your game that such items don't exist.

But as was noted, if you read the rules on the Parry talent, perfectly ordinary melee weapons such as a lowly truncheon can be used for the Parry talent without any penalty. So once again, it makes zero sense to apply a penalty to use Parry to a training 'saber, and reeks more of the GM being petty because he doesn't like an element of setting.

If you feel you've "called me out" on something, I find it amusing. You applied a highly opinionated comment without knowing hardly any backstory. I admit that I should have provided more detail, but I was being rushed. I hit "post" with the intent that I could come and flesh out the comment in an hour or so when I returned, but life tends to sideline things at times. I take responsibility for that mistake, and will endeavor not to do so again. The fact that you chose to attack my point of view rather then try and understand or even dissuade hints at an extremely arrogant character. Rest assured though, my knickers are quite "untwisted". I haven't the time to worry over silly people posting crass comments online. My players like me as a GM. They must, since I seem to be the first person they always try to talk into running their games (even when I have no previous knowledge of the system). I've gamed in several cities across the country (military peeps move) and have never once been accused of being unfair or "a piss-poor GM"! Having gamed with at least 40 different people over the years, I'm sure someone would have said something.

Since it's obvious we don't see eye-to-eye. The mature thing at this point is to simply agree to disagree. I'll thank you for your input, and kindly ask that you not weigh in further as you've made your opinion quite clear. Thank you for your time.

Talosx

As an outsider looking at both your comments the attitude you see in Donovan's post is in your own head. There is no attitude there. Just what you are reading into it.

I just have a hard time imagining a lightsaber that's so weak it can't harm a person, as being capable of the same feats of deflection and parry as a proper lightsaber. I may introduce a small penalty to parry and deflection, justified by the low power version training saber simply being overpowered.

What kind of penalty? That is actually more interesting than whether or not you're going to penalise training saber wielders.

Also: The training sabers are weapons designed to stun and not kill, so they are not lethal, but I'd still say they're pretty powerful being a blade of energy, and being able to zap people to unconsciousness. While the weapon isn't designed to kill it doesn't automatically follow that it's less powerful (in power consumption and requirements and so on) nor that it shouldn't be able to parry or reflect. These are not the same things and not (necessarily) relying on the same foundation in the space operaficated tech.

I just have a hard time imagining a lightsaber that's so weak it can't harm a person, as being capable of the same feats of deflection and parry as a proper lightsaber. I may introduce a small penalty to parry and deflection, justified by the low power version training saber simply being overpowered.

What kind of penalty? That is actually more interesting than whether or not you're going to penalise training saber wielders.

Also: The training sabers are weapons designed to stun and not kill, so they are not lethal, but I'd still say they're pretty powerful being a blade of energy, and being able to zap people to unconsciousness. While the weapon isn't designed to kill it doesn't automatically follow that it's less powerful (in power consumption and requirements and so on) nor that it shouldn't be able to parry or reflect. These are not the same things and not (necessarily) relying on the same foundation in the space operaficated tech.

Nothing to significant. Perhaps reduce the Parry/Reflect ability to 1+ ranks in Parry/Reflect, instead of normal 2+ ranks.

I actually prefer to think of training sabers like those in SWTOR. More like Bokan /Stunrod. It is a stick that stuns that resembles a lightsaber, but when it is turned off, it still looks like a technological stick. The way our group sees it, a lightsaber is science/magic and plasma, making that into a stun beam just doesn't make sense to us. But that works for our group. I can easily see that not working in other groups.

I would be careful with this, since a training lightsaber has an encumbrance of 1, making it both very light and able to be hidden on one's person with little difficulty. The proposed "stick" would really need to have a higher encumbrance rating, at least, to jive with other weapons.

On a personal note, I was never a fan of the "training sabers" from TOR. Thought they looked lame and that the concept was odd.

I just have a hard time imagining a lightsaber that's so weak it can't harm a person, as being capable of the same feats of deflection and parry as a proper lightsaber. I may introduce a small penalty to parry and deflection, justified by the low power version training saber simply being overpowered.

What kind of penalty? That is actually more interesting than whether or not you're going to penalise training saber wielders.

Also: The training sabers are weapons designed to stun and not kill, so they are not lethal, but I'd still say they're pretty powerful being a blade of energy, and being able to zap people to unconsciousness. While the weapon isn't designed to kill it doesn't automatically follow that it's less powerful (in power consumption and requirements and so on) nor that it shouldn't be able to parry or reflect. These are not the same things and not (necessarily) relying on the same foundation in the space operaficated tech.

Nothing to significant. Perhaps reduce the Parry/Reflect ability to 1+ ranks in Parry/Reflect, instead of normal 2+ ranks.

Why? Why gimp them? They already only do strain damage. Why do we need to hobble them more?

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment here, it's not wrong to dislike a concept or theme, taste is subjective. While I'm definitely an opponent of the "I don't like this so I'm nerfing it" school of GM'ing, if the GM is open and reasonable with their group and discusses implementing house rules instead of simply declaring and enforcing them, it's rarely an issue.

Now that I've got that out of the way, I have absolutely no issue with the concept of a training saber; lightsabers are literally plasma swords that use magical gems to operate, created and wielded by zen warrior monks who are also space wizards. A lower intensity blade with a stronger containment field is no stretch of the imagination for one who can accept wizards with magic space swords. On a more practical note, using Lightsaber Talents/Skills is all training sabers have going for them; they're already terrible weapons, stat-wise.

I just have a hard time imagining a lightsaber that's so weak it can't harm a person, as being capable of the same feats of deflection and parry as a proper lightsaber. I may introduce a small penalty to parry and deflection, justified by the low power version training saber simply being overpowered.

What kind of penalty? That is actually more interesting than whether or not you're going to penalise training saber wielders.

Also: The training sabers are weapons designed to stun and not kill, so they are not lethal, but I'd still say they're pretty powerful being a blade of energy, and being able to zap people to unconsciousness. While the weapon isn't designed to kill it doesn't automatically follow that it's less powerful (in power consumption and requirements and so on) nor that it shouldn't be able to parry or reflect. These are not the same things and not (necessarily) relying on the same foundation in the space operaficated tech.

Nothing to significant. Perhaps reduce the Parry/Reflect ability to 1+ ranks in Parry/Reflect, instead of normal 2+ ranks.

Why? Why gimp them? They already only do strain damage. Why do we need to hobble them more?

I've covered this previously. The specific training saber I'm "gimping" is an ancient training protosaber (they had an energy pack with a power cord attached to the hilt), that my players found in an ancient ruin. The fact that it works at all is pretty noteworthy! From tonight's session, it looks to not matter at all though. It seems the players are going to look for a buyer to sell the relic.

EDIT: I have no plans to penalize modern training sabers. I also mentioned this a few posts ago. This particular penalty is applied to a single relic.

I just have a hard time imagining a lightsaber that's so weak it can't harm a person, as being capable of the same feats of deflection and parry as a proper lightsaber. I may introduce a small penalty to parry and deflection, justified by the low power version training saber simply being overpowered.

What kind of penalty? That is actually more interesting than whether or not you're going to penalise training saber wielders.

Also: The training sabers are weapons designed to stun and not kill, so they are not lethal, but I'd still say they're pretty powerful being a blade of energy, and being able to zap people to unconsciousness. While the weapon isn't designed to kill it doesn't automatically follow that it's less powerful (in power consumption and requirements and so on) nor that it shouldn't be able to parry or reflect. These are not the same things and not (necessarily) relying on the same foundation in the space operaficated tech.

Nothing to significant. Perhaps reduce the Parry/Reflect ability to 1+ ranks in Parry/Reflect, instead of normal 2+ ranks.

Why? Why gimp them? They already only do strain damage. Why do we need to hobble them more?

I've covered this previously. The specific training saber I'm "gimping" is an ancient training protosaber (they had an energy pack with a power cord attached to the hilt), that my players found in an ancient ruin. The fact that it works at all is pretty noteworthy! From tonight's session, it looks to not matter at all though. It seems the players are going to look for a buyer to sell the relic.

EDIT: I have no plans to penalize modern training sabers. I also mentioned this a few posts ago. This particular penalty is applied to a single relic.

That is not a training saber. That is a full lightsaber.