Hey guys. As there is no GM's section in Force and Destiny, I will post my topic/question here.

We regularly listen to the Order 66 podcast (not sure how many of you do or not), it is a good source of gaming information and has helped me as a GM. In episode 70, the last 15 minutes they about a GM question where in their game the Jedi using lightsaber to get into a train had an issue. The PC was on top of the train and wanted to carve a hole in the roof so can pop inside. Train had armour value 2 from what I understood. Now the argument in that group was that, canon wise, lightsabers cut through almost everything.

I really like the solution in the episode with the use of a skill check and armour value used as the difficulty check . We certainly all look at the canon and understand the power of a lightsaber though scratch our heads regarding the mechanical application.

Now the discussion was related to use of lightsaber to get into places, to break through something, etc. Distinction between doing an 'attack' and something that does not injure/destroy.

Now, in the most recent SW Rebels episode we have a Jedi that runs across, leaps and literally cuts off two legs underneath an AT-AT, bringing it down. Narratively and thematically, great. Though my question now is, as a result from a player in my group with a Jedi that wants to do stuff like this, how would we mechanically apply that??

The AT-AT is a huge vehicle and **** strong armour. That SW Rebels scene to me is an attack so mechanically in the game, it wouldn't work. Though the pressing issue I have now is that I am being advised "It is canon", "I can cut the legs off an AT-AT". So how does one proceed with the "Yes - And" approach??

I could simply say RAW is RAW and I am not changing approach as that would place the lightsaber way above any weapon any of the other players possess. Also, as its an attack then the mechanics of the attack need to apply. Its not a skill check, that is using lightsaber to get into a sealed room, breaking a lock, etc.

Help me GM's of the world, you're my only hope.

My take: Just remember that Luke also had to contend with an AT-AT while wielding a lightsaber, and he didn't do so by cutting its legs off. So in response to Rebels, all I can think of is the writers must be in Colorado or Washington State, because they must be using the high quality stuff.

I’m with Blackbird888, because all other examples I know of in Canon indicate that it is much harder to cut through durasteel metal like that. Do-able, yes. I mean, Qui-Gon Jinn was cutting through blast doors, but it was hard work, even for a seasoned Jedi Master like him.

If you do have to reconcile those two scenes, then IMO the better way to do that is a combination:

1. That was a prototype AT-AT, which had weaker/less durable legs than later models, which explains why Luke wouldn’t even have thought of attempting that maneuver in ANH. Kanan flipped a Destiny Point to take something that would normally be Impossible, and made it just merely Formidable (five dice difficulty).

2. Kanan also got really super lucky. He was desperate, and The Force was really with him that day. He flipped another destiny point to upgrade his pool (his GM was particularly generous), then he did a targeted blow where he Aimed and then did a True Aim maneuver, and managed to roll at least two if not three Triumphs.

3. Maybe Kanan is not using an Ilum crystal, or if he is, he’s got some special modifications that give it Breach 2, and not just normal Breach 1.

Oh, and if you want to bring in the scene where Ezra chopped off the wing of the Mining Guild TIE fighter, I’d say that they had very poorly repaired second or third-rate equipment which had been heavily modified, and then Ezra also pulled a #2 from above.

You could also just say:

You’re not Kanan, and you’re not Ezra. You’re also not Luke, Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, or Mace Windu.

If you were that good, then the movies would be about you and not them.

You might potentially get there one day, but not today.

It's up to you on how ridiculous you want things to go. In Rebels they also deflect fire from small starships (without suffering damage to their person, they just get knocked off balance from the force of the blasts) with their lightsabers and they cut up TIE Fighters with their sabers.

I would probably make it an attack in which they also need to flip a Lightside point. Depending on how crazy they want to go, it could be a fairly difficult task.

In the episode of Rebels you mentioned, the character also clearly used the Enhance power and leapt into the air while attacking the Walker. Either using Enhance or not, attacking the feet of a moving machine is a dangerous task. If the character was not successful they could have been crushed to death. You could make it a hard attack that requires the use of a Lightside point to go beyond what is normally possible in the game's rules.

For penetrating floors doors and walls we have a presidence set with the prequel films and with Clone Wars/Rebels that it takes a bit of time to do so, depending on how thick the hull is.

If you do have to reconcile those two scenes, then IMO the better way to do that is a combination:

To add a fourth: Kanan clearly knew way more about the Force and was far more potent in his abilities than Luke was in E5. Remember, Kanan does his cut while leaping through the air nearly as high as the belly of the beast...Luke still needed to hitch a ride with a magnetic grappling hook.

PLOT! Which has no correlation with the RaW rules of an RPG set in the same universe,

If we were playing MERP and watching the LoTR trilogy we'd have similar questions (like: How come Frodo and the other Hobbits are NEVER frozen with fear when first confronting Ringwraiths?)

I haven't seen the episode, but I'd say critical hit 109-117: Engines down. Or in this case legs. Everything else would probably just be plot.

Star Wars: Rebels and The Clone Wars when considered as an ongoing RPG campaign lead me to think:

1. The GM and players prefer a cinematic and at times over the top action game.

2. The GM facilitates this by running many complex encounters as a "skill challenge" that encourages broad and cinematic advancements resolved with a single Skill Check.

3. Everyone gets to shine with an episode based on their background and character concerns and each character gets the chance to do something over the top and amazing.

4. These players don't abuse a GM who rolls with big cinematic ideas and the players don't try to stomp on other player's moments. And these players don't look at something cool that worked before as a "button I'm going to push everytime we fight the Empire" - you took out that AT-AT last session but right now you are in fact pinned down and in danger from 2 squads of storm troopers.

Just my 2 credits...

I would also argue that you could make a Easy (1) or Average (2) Lightsaber attack against "the train", and then have the player spend Advantages to Sunder. If enough Sunder is dealt to reduce the train to "destroyed", then the character simply makes a hole big enough to go through. (So with 4 Advantages, you could cut through it immediately; if you get less than 4, then try again and reduce it further, simulating the fact that it takes you longer to cut a big enough hole than expected.)

My take on this would be to shift the results of the roll from pass/fail to degrees of success. Let's face it, we've seen a lightsaber cut through all manner of bulkheads and armor across canon, so any associated skill roll - if you must make a roll at all - could be made to represent just how well or poorly the PC did:

• Massive success equates to doing it quickly, quietly and impressively
• Massive failure equates to taking a really long time and possibly even cutting through a coolant line or tripping an alarm system inadvertently

Thanks for the feedback GM's, much appreciated.

While I want to lay a platform for a good experience for my group, I also want to "keep it real". Its also a fairness factor. If a player with jedi template can bring down an AT AT in one fell swoop then other players with their slug throwers, etc. can be thinking "what's the point of playing my character?"

Its a case of trying to see if I can apply a 'one size fits all' approach. I may use the GM Hooley approach by using armour as difficulty value and its a skill check. AT AT has an armour of 5 so the difficulty check starts at 5 purple dice's. So no easy feat even for a lightsaber. Not saying it cant be done.

Though as pointed out by Jedi Ronin, giving everyone an opportunity to shine is the way to go but I must temper that so in future player A doesn't think lets just rinse and repeat that approach. Makes the narrative useless then. I will ponder some more and possibly drip feed the "Yes.. and" approach with this game mechanic.

The key thing here was the situation itself meant that the party would have to do reckless stuff.

I mean, stealing 3 transports while two AT-AT watch directly? Yeah. Either the ship had to shoot them down (which it failed to do twice I believe. XD) meant that desperate measures had to be used. It was more or less setup where direct confrontation with the relatively unsupported AT-AT was unavoidable.

The way I see it;

Kanan declared his intent to rush a heavily damaged unsupported (no ground troops) AT-AT, and started to take moves to close distance.

Crew fired, missed him.

Kanan got to engaged; from now on the AT-AT couldn't shoot at him because gunnery.

He pulled the stunt off after a difficult check, on a success he hits the knee and succeeds, if he fails, one transport is shot down.

AT-AT died, fist bumps all round, everyone jokes about zeb/hera not being able to hit the broad side of an AT-AT.

Another guy decided to really fire the engines up to kill another; no one bats an eyelid.

Luke was also inexperienced with the force and these are really old movies; theres a lot of things they just couldn't do back in the day that they could now. For all we know AT-AT's have always had this weakness, just naturally speaking most of the time AT-AT's are actually part of a much larger attack force that would make advancing on it less appealing.

I mean, for a bunch of guys who take Yoda's advice about size mattering not at face value, there's quite a bit of disbelief over a Jedi's extraordinary acts. He's a space wizard with a sword of plasma hitting a couple joints on a really heavy machine; it's not unbelievable for a character to strike the weak point (knees) and let gravity do the rest.

Cheers Biscuit.

My goal is always to ensure the group has fun and to date (have been playing/GMing Star Wars since EoE came out) I am confident they are as they all keep on coming back to every session and we have had memorable moments. Its a game system, from the very beginning, that I really enjoyed reading and GMing. For me personally, I need to find enjoyment as a GM and a game mechanic/system that I feel engaging/fun to run. After all, I am playing as well.

So I am always open to working and applying 'rules' outside of RAW. After all, the dev's themselves (and the books to a certain extent) have stated that its up to the GM to adjudicate/decide on how things run/play out. So with that in mind and the desire to have sessions with strong, memorable narrative that uses the mechanics as its foundation I am open to allowing aspects not directly covered in the books. My concern sometimes is that I do not fall into a trap where I have opened Pandora's box. Hence why this particular enquiry.

As mentioned earlier, the application of a skill test versus a difficulty which is based on the armour value of the vehicle, etc., would be a good way to apply this so in the end I am giving a "yes.. and" approach though to succeed wont be an easy task and if success is made, then great satisfaction can be gained for a player that their character managed to do something so difficult. The narrative to follow completion of a great feat can then be matched and stick as another memorable moment for player and group involved.