Did you point out that a lightsaber cannot be sundered?

Okay. As a GM if I was to change Sum Djem because I was very protective over weapons, I would yield first to the fact that Sum Djem disarms but does not destroy a weapon, allowing it to be picked back up.

If I was still in mindset that that was too powerful for me, I would then change Sum Djem to either:

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to lose his free maneuver until the end of the ecounter"

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to go to the bottom of the initiative order"

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to get knocked prone and suffer 1 strain"

These all keep the weapon in the hand of the enemy you are attacking, which seems to be the issue, yet makes Sum Djem do what it was meant to in making the target have to waste a maneuver to respond to your attack. I see Sum Djem in line of hitting a Lightsaber so hard and unexpectedly that the opponent loses grip on it. So to keep in line with that either you hit them so hard they fall down, you cause them to now have to directly engage with you and focus on you so they can't so wild with the maneuvers or that you hit them so hard they lose their cool.

Personally, the resist disarm talent exists for a reason. If the gamemaster wants to make sure their big bad or chief henchmen aren't disarmed in an anticlimactic moment, they should slap it on there and pay the two strain. Then they can let the players disarm characters of lesser dramatic importance to their hearts' content. Removing the talent is overkill.

Okay. As a GM if I was to change Sum Djem because I was very protective over weapons, I would yield first to the fact that Sum Djem disarms but does not destroy a weapon, allowing it to be picked back up.

If I was still in mindset that that was too powerful for me, I would then change Sum Djem to either:

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to lose his free maneuver until the end of the ecounter"

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to go to the bottom of the initiative order"

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to get knocked prone and suffer 1 strain"

These all keep the weapon in the hand of the enemy you are attacking, which seems to be the issue, yet makes Sum Djem do what it was meant to in making the target have to waste a maneuver to respond to your attack. I see Sum Djem in line of hitting a Lightsaber so hard and unexpectedly that the opponent loses grip on it. So to keep in line with that either you hit them so hard they fall down, you cause them to now have to directly engage with you and focus on you so they can't so wild with the maneuvers or that you hit them so hard they lose their cool.

Personally, the resist disarm talent exists for a reason. If the gamemaster wants to make sure their big bad or chief henchmen aren't disarmed in an anticlimactic moment, they should slap it on there and pay the two strain. Then they can let the players disarm characters of lesser dramatic importance to their hearts' content. Removing the talent is overkill.

It happened right as I was about to make my first attack with the lightsaber he'd given me. I asked how Sunder worked. Since he didn't know the answer I looked it up and read it aloud. He said, "That's way too powerful." and changed it on the spot because he believed lightsabers were clearly too powerful.

I've tried explaining to him that all of the other things I could do with four advantages. He also acknowledged how long it would take to accumulate all those successes with our level of skill and he wouldn't budge.

He just doesn't get it. I've long since given up on convincing him. If I press this any further he'll do something drastic like quiting or kicking me out of what is otherwise a very fun and largely successful game.

I'd much rather just focus on some thematic alternative talents for the various classes that have Sum Djem in their talent trees.

I see.

Well the Niman seems to have a lot of Reflect talent so I might offer up the Shien Expert's Djem So Deflection to capitalize on the Reflects you have. For the Shii Cho ..... sadly there isn't a lot in the other trees that seem like a good replacement. So my only suggestion is maybe .... saber throw?

Maybe Falling Avalanche.

Why isn't the GM using adversary? Setbacks? both lower the amount of advantage the player is left with.

Why isn't the GM using adversary? Setbacks? both lower the amount of advantage the player is left with.

Agreed. It sounds like a GM new to this system, who has yet to grasp some of the 'on the fly' balancing techniques that more experienced GM's are using. They are factored into the balancing of the system after all.

To me if Sunder and Sun Djem are a problem it is likely because the encounters are not balanced right and too easy for the players.

Why isn't the GM using adversary? Setbacks? both lower the amount of advantage the player is left with.

I can't believe I missed that.

Adversary often dramatically reduces how effective a player is; reflecting experience and threat in a compact system.

Heck, knowing my GM, he would probably put sense bonus's and dodge, just to make him like stripping an onion. EVERY LAYER IS TEARS.

Me personal favorite is defensive training.

Okay. As a GM if I was to change Sum Djem because I was very protective over weapons, I would yield first to the fact that Sum Djem disarms but does not destroy a weapon, allowing it to be picked back up.

If I was still in mindset that that was too powerful for me, I would then change Sum Djem to either:

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to lose his free maneuver until the end of the ecounter"

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to go to the bottom of the initiative order"

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to get knocked prone and suffer 1 strain"

These all keep the weapon in the hand of the enemy you are attacking, which seems to be the issue, yet makes Sum Djem do what it was meant to in making the target have to waste a maneuver to respond to your attack. I see Sum Djem in line of hitting a Lightsaber so hard and unexpectedly that the opponent loses grip on it. So to keep in line with that either you hit them so hard they fall down, you cause them to now have to directly engage with you and focus on you so they can't so wild with the maneuvers or that you hit them so hard they lose their cool.

Personally, the resist disarm talent exists for a reason. If the gamemaster wants to make sure their big bad or chief henchmen aren't disarmed in an anticlimactic moment, they should slap it on there and pay the two strain. Then they can let the players disarm characters of lesser dramatic importance to their hearts' content. Removing the talent is overkill.

I would say the same for Sunder but it is obvious the GM from the op is kind of a lame dude.

I don't think its necessary to throw stones or defame them.

The GM is preemptively overcompensating for a legitimate concern. Namely, that light-saber wielding characters will routinely sunder their opponent's weapons, thereby "chumping" them. While a trained Jedi should reasonably expect to be able to sunder a weapon after closing to engagement range it would get boring pretty fast if it was the routine go-to move - and gamers do tend to unromantically leverage what works.

The issue here, to my mind, is inexperience. There are other, less fiat-oriented, ways of dealing with the issue. A non-exhaustive list would be:

1. do let them sunder minons weapons (so that they get the cool vibes)
2. make sure players have options to use triumphs and advantages in other cool ways.
3. have more important opponents spread out, shoot and move, and use cover.
4. put the occasional sniper on overwatch so that moving to engagement range involves risks
5. every so often, have a force pike, electro-staff or cortosis weapon make an appearance.
6. build a surprise opponent with high brawn, brawl, and unarmed talents - knock 'em down and put the boot in
7. make battle sites interesting, perilous, and force players to work beyond swing, miss, swing, hit, repeat.

There are plenty of other solutions to the mono-sunder tactic we can devise, I'm sure. Yet, a GM should also ask: would you rather they went for the crit every time instead of sunder? Because, those growling glow-sticks of death are gruesomely lethal.

In the game I run for my lady and one of our daughters, they haven't considered sunder (and I'm thinking about giving some hints...) and have opted for the dismemberings, bisections, and decapitations that crits can bring. I will reward them with a few opponents turning tail and running for their lives while screeching like little girls if they opt for a sunder now and again... positive reinforcement.

I think Vondy's got a good point.

Granted, we only have the player's side on this, and so don't know what specific objections the GM has to the mechanics on Sunder or Sum Djem. But reading through the thread, it does sound like the case of a newer GM being worried about how these two items look on paper and imagining a worst-case scenario.

I do like the suggestion of requiring the GM to flip a destiny point if they want to negate Sum Djem talent, and will be incorporating that into my short list of rules tweaks, with a possible addendum that spending the point means the talent's a no-go for the rest of the encounter to discourage the PC from using Sum Djem every round in the hopes of either getting a disarm or forcing the GM to burn through their destiny points.

Personally, I generally don't waste my Advantages on Sunder (main exception is when a PC of mine sees a disruptor pistol or rifle; those get Sundered ASAP), and instead use them to recover strain (a big deal when you're playing an Ataru Striker who can go through strain very quickly), inflict a crit, or to hand out boost dice to allies or setback dice to adversaries. That said, I did have one Beta adventure where a PC and NPC slugging it out with lightsabers kept disarming the other to the point it became more comical than anything else, especially since neither of them were generating enough successes to actually hit the other guy.

Never had a PC grab the Sum Djem talent, but from the Beta playtesting I did, said talent didn't seem a huge deal, as most of the times any Advantage generated was spent on other things than just a straight disarm.

I would really try to get your GM to try out sunder and disarming in their game before altering talent trees and potentially creating a worse situation where the new talent creates an imbalance that is even more difficult to deal with than if the tree had been left as is. Sundering shouldn't be a deal-breaker for a combat encounter. Sure, minions will probably run away or cower in fear when they lose their main weapon, rivals maybe, but a nemesis should have a plan, even if that plan is throw his nearest minion group into the party and run away to fight another day. And if the party sunders the BBEG's pretty snazzy super gun, then, well, they don't get to loot it from his corpse. There is also a magnetic tether attachment in Keeping the Peace I believe which lets you pick up the tethered object easily. So, disarm, great! He whips out his hand and the weapon flies right back into it! Note that this would get old really fast if every enemy had one, but when used in moderation I think it would be fun. Just like it would get really old really fast if every enemy had the Resist Disarm talent with a Cortosis weapon.

Anyway, replacing talents is one of the things I think can ruin the balance this system does have. I have a few table rules and changes that I've done, but changing talent trees is a line I haven't crossed, don't intend to, and don't recommend.

Why isn't the GM using adversary? Setbacks? both lower the amount of advantage the player is left with.

I can't believe I missed that.

Adversary often dramatically reduces how effective a player is; reflecting experience and threat in a compact system.

Heck, knowing my GM, he would probably put sense bonus's and dodge, just to make him like stripping an onion. EVERY LAYER IS TEARS.

GMS don't use dodge they use adversary. The whole point of adversary is so the GM does not have to keep track of the multiple types of defensive abilities. They only have to worry about one.

Okay. As a GM if I was to change Sum Djem because I was very protective over weapons, I would yield first to the fact that Sum Djem disarms but does not destroy a weapon, allowing it to be picked back up.

If I was still in mindset that that was too powerful for me, I would then change Sum Djem to either:

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to lose his free maneuver until the end of the ecounter"

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to go to the bottom of the initiative order"

"Spend a (Triumph) or (Two Advantages) to apply cause the target to get knocked prone and suffer 1 strain"

These all keep the weapon in the hand of the enemy you are attacking, which seems to be the issue, yet makes Sum Djem do what it was meant to in making the target have to waste a maneuver to respond to your attack. I see Sum Djem in line of hitting a Lightsaber so hard and unexpectedly that the opponent loses grip on it. So to keep in line with that either you hit them so hard they fall down, you cause them to now have to directly engage with you and focus on you so they can't so wild with the maneuvers or that you hit them so hard they lose their cool.

Personally, the resist disarm talent exists for a reason. If the gamemaster wants to make sure their big bad or chief henchmen aren't disarmed in an anticlimactic moment, they should slap it on there and pay the two strain. Then they can let the players disarm characters of lesser dramatic importance to their hearts' content. Removing the talent is overkill.

I would say the same for Sunder but it is obvious the GM from the op is kind of a lame dude.

I don't think its necessary to throw stones or defame them.

The GM is preemptively overcompensating for a legitimate concern. Namely, that light-saber wielding characters will routinely sunder their opponent's weapons, thereby "chumping" them. While a trained Jedi should reasonably expect to be able to sunder a weapon after closing to engagement range it would get boring pretty fast if it was the routine go-to move - and gamers do tend to unromantically leverage what works.

The issue here, to my mind, is inexperience. There are other, less fiat-oriented, ways of dealing with the issue. A non-exhaustive list would be:

1. do let them sunder minons weapons (so that they get the cool vibes)
2. make sure players have options to use triumphs and advantages in other cool ways.
3. have more important opponents spread out, shoot and move, and use cover.
4. put the occasional sniper on overwatch so that moving to engagement range involves risks
5. every so often, have a force pike, electro-staff or cortosis weapon make an appearance.
6. build a surprise opponent with high brawn, brawl, and unarmed talents - knock 'em down and put the boot in
7. make battle sites interesting, perilous, and force players to work beyond swing, miss, swing, hit, repeat.

There are plenty of other solutions to the mono-sunder tactic we can devise, I'm sure. Yet, a GM should also ask: would you rather they went for the crit every time instead of sunder? Because, those growling glow-sticks of death are gruesomely lethal.

In the game I run for my lady and one of our daughters, they haven't considered sunder (and I'm thinking about giving some hints...) and have opted for the dismemberings, bisections, and decapitations that crits can bring. I will reward them with a few opponents turning tail and running for their lives while screeching like little girls if they opt for a sunder now and again... positive reinforcement.

This is a good chunk of the Order 66 Podcasts list. I highly recommend give the list strikes back episode of the podcast a listen. It has more good advice on this.

Why isn't the GM using adversary? Setbacks? both lower the amount of advantage the player is left with.

I can't believe I missed that.

Adversary often dramatically reduces how effective a player is; reflecting experience and threat in a compact system.

Heck, knowing my GM, he would probably put sense bonus's and dodge, just to make him like stripping an onion. EVERY LAYER IS TEARS.

GMS don't use dodge they use adversary. The whole point of adversary is so the GM does not have to keep track of the multiple types of defensive abilities. They only have to worry about one.

He's well aware. Just sometimes he uses talents like this on the rare occasion he wants to give a villain many layers. It doesn't matter hugely either way and it's something we rarely see. To be fair, we have only encountered one lightsaber opponent thus far. Well, two, but the latter example was deployed poorly and almost got autofired down. XD

You can destroy a Lightsaber with 2 Triumphs.

Hm! Didn't know that... maybe I should skim trough the rules again. Well, thanks for the info.

Hm, aren't the lightsabers immune to the sunder ability?

He should put some lightsaber users against you if the's afraid of sunder.

So are weapons with the Cortosis quality, such as electrostaves.

Ah yes. Forgot to mention those.

Yes, it's on the FaD combat chart. For 2 Triumphs you can destroy the target's lightsaber (if he has any), and the GM may allow you to salvage the crystal inside. I assume that you may only do this if you are wielding a lightsaber as well, but the rules aren't clear.

But to be fair, any piece of equipment could probably be destroyed with 2 Trimphs anyway, not just lightsabers. They just specificaly mention lightsabers because it's in the FaD Core.