SPOILERS FOR UNDER A BLACK SUN

OK, So I am hopefully, going to be running my group though Under a Black Sun, which has the Big Bad at the end using a Jetpack. The adventure is written as if you dont have a Force User.

I do, and he has Force Move, at a level where he can manipulate a person sized item.

Now, if the guy was standing, he would get some kind of resistance, but if he is flying about, how would I deal with this?

The last thing I need is the big final battle being ended in one swipe, when the Force user pulls him in and chops him down, without anyway of countering this.

What are your suggestions?

Difficulty upgrades for each rank of jetpack guy's speed #, as well as a setback per rank of Planetary Pilot jetpack guy has on the Force users roll.

Difficulty upgrades for each rank of jetpack guy's speed #, as well as a setback per rank of Planetary Pilot jetpack guy has on the Force users roll.

So... make the force roll harder based on the targets Speed and Skill?

What skill roll would I be asking the PC for?

Force and Destiny has a sidebar calling out opposed checks.

Using that sidebar as my guide, I would make the discipline check difficulty be based on the Big Bad's piloting (Planetary) check and call it done.

Force and Destiny has a sidebar calling out opposed checks.

Using that sidebar as my guide, I would make the discipline check difficulty be based on the Big Bad's piloting (Planetary) check and call it done.

I love that in this system bascially every check is an opposed one. That makes it so much easier than any other system where you differentiate how they work from normal checks.

Make it a an Opposed Check as per the Resisting Force Power Checks (page 283 F&D Core). The Move check could be opposed by the Big Baddy's Pilot (Planetary) skill if he is flying.

Don't forget that in addition to the Strength upgrade to get to silhouette 1, your force user will also need one Range upgrade to get to the Medium range band, or two Range upgrades to be able to Move the BBEG at Long range.

Don't forget that in addition to the Strength upgrade to get to silhouette 1, your force user will also need one Range upgrade to get to the Medium range band, or two Range upgrades to be able to Move the BBEG at Long range.

Yeah, he has the Magnitude Upgrade and a Range one, but he would still only need one Forcepip to activate the power for that Range/Magnitude. Right?

Actually, he needs one pip to activate, and one for each DIFFERENT upgrade (regardless of rank): Three is the magic number.

Actually, he needs one pip to activate, and one for each DIFFERENT upgrade (regardless of rank): Three is the magic number.

Can you point me exactly where it spells that out in the book please?

and lets not forget at least a rank or two of Adversary...

Those Despairs are GM gold.

Roll one when you're trying to Force Grab someone? Oh yeah...you grabbed something alright.

Too bad it was the thermal detonator he was about to throw at you. Everyone scatter!

SPOILERS FOR UNDER A BLACK SUN

OK, So I am hopefully, going to be running my group though Under a Black Sun, which has the Big Bad at the end using a Jetpack. The adventure is written as if you dont have a Force User.

I do, and he has Force Move, at a level where he can manipulate a person sized item.

Now, if the guy was standing, he would get some kind of resistance, but if he is flying about, how would I deal with this?

The last thing I need is the big final battle being ended in one swipe, when the Force user pulls him in and chops him down, without anyway of countering this.

What are your suggestions?

Firstly, I'd give the villain just the same chances of resisting as if they were standing on the ground. If anything, it would be harder as the villain has the ability to provide counter-force even once they lose contact with the ground.

Secondly, it's Bind that really represents using telekinesis against a living target directly. Move is really just throwing things. I don't think it will particularly be a threat if you play it by the rules.

Don't forget that in addition to the Strength upgrade to get to silhouette 1, your force user will also need one Range upgrade to get to the Medium range band, or two Range upgrades to be able to Move the BBEG at Long range.

Plus the Control upgrade to in any way cause damage with this.

What ranged weaponry does this villain have? Unless they're a melee combatant, moving them to a different range band probably doesn't really cause them that much trouble. Assuming you succeed anyway. What is the circumstances of this battle? What is the villain trying to achieve and what are the PCs trying to achieve? Who is the attacker and who wants to get away?

Actually, he needs one pip to activate, and one for each DIFFERENT upgrade (regardless of rank): Three is the magic number.

Can you point me exactly where it spells that out in the book please?

It's actually under the upgrade definitions for each power (some upgrades don't actually require a force pip to activate, but most do). So in EotE book on pg.284 it tells you that for the Strength upgrade entry that the user must spend (O) to increase the Silhouette affected by one per amount of Strength upgrades. Similarly for most other upgrades such as Magnitude. So yes, you'd need three (O) in total to activate the power plus the Strength upgrade plus the Range upgrade.

Actually, he needs one pip to activate, and one for each DIFFERENT upgrade (regardless of rank): Three is the magic number.

Can you point me exactly where it spells that out in the book please?

Check out Force Power Checks (page 280 F&D) and then each specific power. Usually it is a Force Point to activate the basic power and then a Force Point for each upgrade you wish to activate. For instance in the case of the Move power you would need three Force points to affect a target that is Sil 1 at medium range as long as you have one Strength upgrade and one Range upgrade.

Yeah, he has the Magnitude Upgrade and a Range one, but he would still only need one Forcepip to activate the power for that Range/Magnitude. Right?

RAW, it is one pip to activate the base power, one pip to activate all available Strength upgrades, and one pip to activate all available Range upgrades.

If the BBEG is outside of that range, then you’d need to spend another pip to do another activation of all available Range upgrades.

To the opposed roll, I would add setbacks for the Speed at which the BBEG is flying, and make sure to include ranks of Adversary as further upgrades to the roll.

Firstly, I'd give the villain just the same chances of resisting as if they were standing on the ground. If anything, it would be harder as the villain has the ability to provide counter-force even once they lose contact with the ground.

Secondly, it's Bind that really represents using telekinesis against a living target directly. Move is really just throwing things. I don't think it will particularly be a threat if you play it by the rules.

Let keep the debate Bind vs Move and your personnal view on the matter out of this thread. Per RAW, Move can affect living target.

Firstly, I'd give the villain just the same chances of resisting as if they were standing on the ground. If anything, it would be harder as the villain has the ability to provide counter-force even once they lose contact with the ground.

Secondly, it's Bind that really represents using telekinesis against a living target directly. Move is really just throwing things. I don't think it will particularly be a threat if you play it by the rules.

Let keep the debate Bind vs Move and your personnal view on the matter out of this thread. Per RAW, Move can affect living target.

No, let's not call things a "personal view" just because you disagree with it. Also, you apparently didn't understand what I wrote as my post clearly does talk about Move power affecting living targets, you just left that part out of what you quoted. As to Bind? Of course it represents the use of telekinesis against living targets - it lets you move them about (Force Push), hold them in position (lifting them in the air / pinning them against a wall) and even injure them with telekinesis (force choke). Read the power - this is all RAW and there's little room for debate about that as it's all written plainly under the Bind description, it allows all of these things.

If you're not allowed to move the "living target", move the inanimate jetpack. Let them decide, whether they want to release the straps.

If you're not allowed to move the "living target", move the inanimate jetpack. Let them decide, whether they want to release the straps.

If you ruled that Move couldn't affect living targets like the above, then I would say you would also need the Control upgrade that lets you use the power on things in another person's "grip". Assuming that you were going with this interpretation.

The Move power refers to "objects" and "items" consistently throughout all the power descriptions. Whilst other powers such as Bind refer to "the target", "those around them" and similar. Both are telekinetic powers that in terms of the films and cartoons are probably both just "using the Force", but in game terms are broken down into different, balanced powers. I think that is the basis for some ruling that Move is only for inanimate objects and Bind is for living or sentient targets. I think it's the less common interpretation but it's also supportable in the rules. I think the use of Move applying to animate beings took root mostly because Edge of Empire doesn't have Bind in it. If F&D with the more complete Force rules had come out first, it would probably have fallen out the other way because you have one telekinetic power explicitly about active creatures and one telekinetic power explicitly about objects and items.

Read by power descriptions alone, you probably wouldn't have Move on a living being, you'd stick to Bind which covers all the things we see in the movies when it comes to people using telekinesis on living / sentient targets. However, there is a side-bar in both EotE and FaD titled "Force Powers and Narrative" which states that the powers are left deliberately broad in range and GMs are encouraged to allow creative use as long as the player's suggestion fits reasonably closely to the powers' actual design. It gives an example of a team-mate falling off a balcony and says the player could be allowed a Force check with Move or Bind to catch them before they hit the ground. So a GM is encouraged to be flexible.

I think either interpretation is valid, though Move for objects and Bind for targets appears to be the design intent. If you are ruling as you do though, I would require the "grip" Control upgrade to do what you suggest; or if allowing Move to affect living / sentient beings, then the Control upgrade for doing damage if that is the player's aim.

Anyway, I think the most important question is the one the OP hasn't answered yet which is what the NPCs goals are in this scenario. Are they the attacker, are they the attacked? What is it that they want that the players are in the way of or vice versa. That is going to be the key thing that determines how Move power impacts this confrontation. Is the villain seeking to escape? Are the PCs? Does the villain want to kill someone or destroy some specific McGuffin? Two factions simply showing up to fight to the death is seldom realistic or interesting, imo. Combat has far greater depth when there are real underlying goals. Move power's usage is going to depend very much on what those goals are - pulling him back from fleeing / throwing obstacles in his way to prevent pursuit / lifting his intended target to safety or catching them when he drops them from on high, etc.

My 2Cr, anyway.

So, one line of bait earned me four paragraphs of catch. That's what I call a good haul.

So, one line of bait earned me four paragraphs of catch. That's what I call a good haul.

I see. I hadn't realize you were simply trolling. I thought it was a genuine question.

Well hopefully it will be of use / interest to the OP even if you yourself weren't posting in good faith.

If I were you, I would be offended by your choice of words, wouldn't I?

Man, it's only a game! You're supposed to have fun. If you don't, you should be paid for it.

But, if you insist, I will switch on the rules lawyer:

1. This is the EotE forum, the supposition of the existence of a "Bind" Force power is, technically, an inadmissable assumption;

2. The RAW only speak of "objects", not "inanimate objects" (people can become objects; you'll just have to push them behind the predicate);

3. under the accord, that it is actually possible to move living beings by means of the Force, the only valid solution, with the restricted EotE rules set in mind, is the "Move" power.

BEWARE OF TROLLS: When you're throwing a tree, are you binding it?

Sorry, gotta go. Work!

If I were you, I would be offended by your choice of words, wouldn't I?

Not sure what you're getting at here, but if it's an objection to me using the term trolling, what do you expect when you tell me you were deliberately baiting me and crow about getting me to write paragraphs in response.

Man, it's only a game! You're supposed to have fun. If you don't, you should be paid for it.

Again, don't really see what you're getting at here. You're suggesting I don't enjoy the game for some reason - don't see why. I was simply trying to answer the OPs question. All my original post did was to point out that you need a particular Control upgrade to do damage to someone with Move and to also point out that a lot of what we see in the movies is covered by the Bind power which they may well not know about because it wasn't included in the EotE book - it only appears in FaD which has the more complete Force rules. For that, I get one person telling me to keep my opinions to myself and another (you) trying to bait me for your amusement. Neither of which help the OP particularly so far as I can see.

But, if you insist, I will switch on the rules lawyer:[

1. This is the EotE forum, the supposition of the existence of a "Bind" Force power is, technically, an inadmissable assumption;

Don't pretend that someone playing EotE may not be interested in things from FaD. Especially when EotE only has cut down Force rules compared to the latter. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that another book contains expanded rules that provide more context and the OP is, I am sure, perfectly capable of deciding what they want. It's notable that to make your criticisms you have to skip over the entire fact that I put the arguments for both sides of the debate and just provided information for the OP to make any decisions upon. Your "rules lawyer" attempt to refute someone who simply laid out the information is misplaced and, to be honest, bizarrely aggressive.

2. The RAW only speak of "objects", not "inanimate objects" (people can become objects; you'll just have to push them behind the predicate);

Actually it consistently refers to "items" and "objects" in one power and consistently uses "targets" in another. It's not normal English to ever use "items" or "objects" to refer to people. And targets is used throughout the game books to refer to active things that oppose a PC. You could interpret Move either way depending on GM preference but again, don't pretend there isn't a supportable case that Move is supposed to affect objects and Bind is supposed to living / sentient beings. The fact that different terminology is deliberately used and that otherwise Move almost entirely renders Bind obsolete are strongly suggestive that this is the design intent. Why have a power that is all about lifting people up, moving them around, damaging them through telekinetic force, if a few pages later there is another power that allows you do all of these things PLUS affect objects and also allows far greater movement of people? What is the purpose of an entire power tree if it is nothing but a more limited and less powerful subset of another power tree that costs just as much?

Like I said from the start, you can interpret it either way but perhaps you should turn your Lawyer mode "off" again, because you're over-reaching in trying to attack me or claim this view is not a reasonable interpretation.

3. under the accord, that it is actually possible to move living beings by means of the Force, the only valid solution, with the restricted EotE rules set in mind, is the "Move" power.

The "accord"? I don't recall signing anything when I joined the community here that said nothing from other compatible game systems should be mentioned in this one. It's not up to you to forbid anyone from pointing the OP in the direction of things in other game lines. Would you equally say that Forsee doesn't appear in EotE, therefore Sense must also allow a PC to do the things that Forsee allows? Or that Enhance doesn't appear in EotE, either, and therefore the Move power should allow the same things as that power? The principle is exactly the same.

The game systems are compatible and designed to be interchangeable. By your argument, the Move power in EotE should be more powerful than the Move power of a character using it in FaD because FaD has other powers that can do the same things, but EotE doesn't so it has to cover these other powers. And what should someone do if they later buy one of these books that you have argued the powers need to be interpreted differently between? They'll have created a messy problem for themselves.

Your approach above is flawed. A more reasonable interpretation if you go down the road of excluding anything not in the EotE game-line, would be to say that EotE simply doesn't provide rules to do everything, which it doesn't, rather than start changing powers between the games.

BEWARE OF TROLLS: When you're throwing a tree, are you binding it?

Unless it's this one, then it's going to be Move.

Sorry, gotta go.

You don't need to apologize for that!

So, speaking as someone who has been in both camps (Move vs Bind) and not really had a satisfied feeling in either one, there is a lot of stuff to muddle through.

Firstly, there is no RAW that specifically correlates to the problem. Nowhere in the tree for Move does it mention it being able to be used on living targets directly, and in the description of the Force Power it only uses inanimate objects as examples of the use of the power.

Secondly, there is no on-screen example in the movies of multiple, living targets being "Force Pushed" - only droids. In cases where a living target is being "pushed" only a single target is ever shown, and even then only in the prequels. This lends to the Bind power being used in these cases and the Move power being used in the cases of Droids, but (as Grimmerling so eloquently put it) Move not being able to be used on Trees, plants, etc seems strange in the context of how we visualize it doesn't it? Moreover, we clearly see Luke lift Threepio in a chair made of wood - so there is on screen precedent for Move to be used on living tissue. There are a few significant differences - first, he only lifts Threepio slowly, and there fore this definitely not a "Force Push" that stems the debate. However it does establish the ability of the move power to be used on living things, and if established, then any Move upgrades are equally eligible.

Fourth, the statement that the "Force Push" in the movies was the Move power was from a Dev during a blog, and not an official FAQ, and while the Dev's intentions are very valid to how the envisioned the game to be, it isn't in itself proof of rule - there are many Dev's that work in unison to create the game, and no single Dev should be acknowledged over another, lest we reduce the work as a whole for love of its part.

Finally, there are within the rules many ways systemically to represent things we see on screen (such as Vader's "Force Choke" or the "Force Push"). In regards to the choke, this could be either Harm or Bind, depending. Both deal wounds in damage, and we cannot be sure if the target is immobile because of some Force effect or merely the fact that he's freaking choking. Bind/Move is in the same boat, as systemically they both represent ways one can use narrative to describe the "Force Push."

This final point is where the most likely answer for resolution comes from (and indeed, in my games where I place the resolution). Age of Rebellion, Edge of the Empire, and Force and Destiny are narrative based games, designed to allow the players to use dice rolls to create a narrative description of their characters actions. Remember the first rule of improv, "Yes, and ..." This simple statement enables the player and the GM to go back and forth describing what the dice are telling them, and this is where the answer lies. If the power reasonably allows you to describe a result that fits the idea of the "Force Push" or "Force Choke" or "Force Whatever," then the narrative fluff of how it appears should be accepted and built upon, not corrected and ret-conned. So in the end, my opinion is that BOTH Bind and Move can be used to re-create the effects of Force Push.

In response to the OP's question, the Move power wouldn't really affect things that much. You can always use the provided rules ("Resisting Force Power Checks" on page 283 of F&D) for resisting Force Powers. You can also have the Move power force the BBEG to use a maneuver in order to make a Piloting Check to stay in control (just as if navigating in strong winds). Either would be reasonable, but unless your Force User is very powerful, it will difficult for him to seriously hinder a competent merc with a Jetpack.

Lastly, on Page 284 of the Edge of the Empire Core Rulebook ("Force Power: Move") it states under both "Strength Upgrade" and "Range Upgrade" that one must spend a LSP to activate the upgrade, and if the needed condition isn't met, must continue to activate the upgrade until the condition is met. Under "Range Upgrade" it further reminds the player that an additional LSP is still required to activate the initial power as well.

So, speaking as someone who has been in both camps (Move vs Bind) and not really had a satisfied feeling in either one, there is a lot of stuff to muddle through.

Firstly, there is no RAW that specifically correlates to the problem. Nowhere in the tree for Move does it mention it being able to be used on living targets directly, and in the description of the Force Power it only uses inanimate objects as examples of the use of the power.

Secondly, there is no on-screen example in the movies of multiple, living targets being "Force Pushed" - only droids. In cases where a living target is being "pushed" only a single target is ever shown, and even then only in the prequels. This lends to the Bind power being used in these cases and the Move power being used in the cases of Droids, but (as Grimmerling so eloquently put it) Move not being able to be used on Trees, plants, etc seems strange in the context of how we visualize it doesn't it? Moreover, we clearly see Luke lift Threepio in a chair made of wood - so there is on screen precedent for Move to be used on living tissue. There are a few significant differences - first, he only lifts Threepio slowly, and there fore this definitely not a "Force Push" that stems the debate. However it does establish the ability of the move power to be used on living things, and if established, then any Move upgrades are equally eligible.

Fourth, the statement that the "Force Push" in the movies was the Move power was from a Dev during a blog, and not an official FAQ, and while the Dev's intentions are very valid to how the envisioned the game to be, it isn't in itself proof of rule - there are many Dev's that work in unison to create the game, and no single Dev should be acknowledged over another, lest we reduce the work as a whole for love of its part.

Finally, there are within the rules many ways systemically to represent things we see on screen (such as Vader's "Force Choke" or the "Force Push"). In regards to the choke, this could be either Harm or Bind, depending. Both deal wounds in damage, and we cannot be sure if the target is immobile because of some Force effect or merely the fact that he's freaking choking. Bind/Move is in the same boat, as systemically they both represent ways one can use narrative to describe the "Force Push."

This final point is where the most likely answer for resolution comes from (and indeed, in my games where I place the resolution). Age of Rebellion, Edge of the Empire, and Force and Destiny are narrative based games, designed to allow the players to use dice rolls to create a narrative description of their characters actions. Remember the first rule of improv, "Yes, and ..." This simple statement enables the player and the GM to go back and forth describing what the dice are telling them, and this is where the answer lies. If the power reasonably allows you to describe a result that fits the idea of the "Force Push" or "Force Choke" or "Force Whatever," then the narrative fluff of how it appears should be accepted and built upon, not corrected and ret-conned. So in the end, my opinion is that BOTH Bind and Move can be used to re-create the effects of Force Push.

In response to the OP's question, the Move power wouldn't really affect things that much. You can always use the provided rules ("Resisting Force Power Checks" on page 283 of F&D) for resisting Force Powers. You can also have the Move power force the BBEG to use a maneuver in order to make a Piloting Check to stay in control (just as if navigating in strong winds). Either would be reasonable, but unless your Force User is very powerful, it will difficult for him to seriously hinder a competent merc with a Jetpack.

Lastly, on Page 284 of the Edge of the Empire Core Rulebook ("Force Power: Move") it states under both "Strength Upgrade" and "Range Upgrade" that one must spend a LSP to activate the upgrade, and if the needed condition isn't met, must continue to activate the upgrade until the condition is met. Under "Range Upgrade" it further reminds the player that an additional LSP is still required to activate the initial power as well.

I agree with pretty much all of that. It's what I was saying as well, albeit less pinkly.

The key is that the rules are a translation of what we see on screen into a more game-friendly approach. When Anakin force chokes someone and when Anakin throws a droid backwards, these are both - in the setting, just exerting telekinetic power through the Force. You could probably include force leap in that category too unless you think it works by super-charging muscles. One might require slightly more fine-tuned motor-control than another, but they're all just "using the Force" in George Lucas's mind. But when you turn that into a balanced game, especially one with a narrative rules system, it gets broken down into different aspects. Yes, both force-choking someone and throwing a droid back are examples of telekinesis but now you have different powers for them. And you can do this in a narrative rules system because the rules define outcomes, rather than effects.

As to discussion about trees, I think that's a red-herring based on Grimmerling trying to critique my post where I wrote about living / sentient beings. I always wrote both together because I didn't want to exclude droids or include amoeba. It's really about something being an active, animate being. Biological processes are just a correlation, not a definition. Grimmerling cut out the "beings" part and started talking about trees. That dead-end should be ignored. I think what we're really talking about in distinguishing "objects" and "items" from "targets", is active vs. inanimate. R2-D2 is not an "object", imo. A tree is. If a GM wants to rule that Bind affects living / sentient beings and Move affects "items", then that's the way we should distinguish things. Not whether they are "alive" which is something philosophers have debated for a long time and is rather carbon-prejudiced anyway. But rather whether they are beings. Or in game terms, can it make a dice roll.

As I said, and which for some reason seems to cause great consternation, there's a supportable case for a GM to interpret either way. I pretty much take the same view Kyla does for the reasons given above plus it leads to nice game balance and consistency in the rules.

1. This is the EotE forum, the supposition of the existence of a "Bind" Force power is, technically, an inadmissable assumption;

They're all one game. The only real reason for "inadmissible" is if the GM has story reasons

2. The RAW only speak of "objects", not "inanimate objects" (people can become objects; you'll just have to push them behind the predicate);

I believe the devs have already weigh in on that, and Move is useable against "people". You can certainly use it to "fly"...

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/108101-ffg-developer-answered-questions/

I can't say I agree with either of those, but if you want to be a rules lawyer, there you go.