Down to one last question about Defense. So if you have multiple sources for Defense you pick the highest. Does this apply to Defensive as well? If you have multiple sources of defensive do you add them or just pick the highest?

One Dev's response was that ANYTHING which refers to defense values, is a "source of defense". Which means you can EITHER wear a piece of armor, OR carry a weapon with Defensive, OR train a Talent which affects your Defense somehow... but you cannot combine any of those things in any fashion.

However, the wording of the book lends highly to the contrary. Armor is pretty straightforward. One piece gives you Defense 1 (which equates to Melee 1 / Ranged 1). Another piece gives you Defense 2 (2 / 2). Those cannot be stacked together to make 3, but you use the higher among them.

Defensive does not *give* you defense, it very specifically says it "increases" your defense. Which should mean that it improves whatever value you had otherwise. In which case, wearing armor with Defense 2 (2 / 2) and carrying something with Defensive 1, should total to 3 / 2 in the end.

This inconsistency has since been brought back to the Devs' attention, and they are supposed to be re-evaluating the rules. No word yet on when they will have a clarification whether ANYTHING is a source, or how to adjudicate which items contribute and when. So for the moment, it's basically up to the GM.

For my money, I don't think Defensive on both hands should add together. Like a sword with Defensive and a shield with Defensive. Either you parry, or you hide behind the shield, not both. But otherwise you should be able to fend off an attack with your item, and still have the armor (and applicable talents) in case it gets through. So I count the highest static source of Defense, and logically applicable items / talents, into a grand total for Melee and Ranged.

One Dev's response was that ANYTHING which refers to defense values, is a "source of defense". Which means you can EITHER wear a piece of armor, OR carry a weapon with Defensive, OR train a Talent which affects your Defense somehow... but you cannot combine any of those things in any fashion.

However, the wording of the book lends highly to the contrary. Armor is pretty straightforward. One piece gives you Defense 1 (which equates to Melee 1 / Ranged 1). Another piece gives you Defense 2 (2 / 2). Those cannot be stacked together to make 3, but you use the higher among them.

Defensive does not *give* you defense, it very specifically says it "increases" your defense. Which should mean that it improves whatever value you had otherwise. In which case, wearing armor with Defense 2 (2 / 2) and carrying something with Defensive 1, should total to 3 / 2 in the end.

This inconsistency has since been brought back to the Devs' attention, and they are supposed to be re-evaluating the rules. No word yet on when they will have a clarification whether ANYTHING is a source, or how to adjudicate which items contribute and when. So for the moment, it's basically up to the GM.

For my money, I don't think Defensive on both hands should add together. Like a sword with Defensive and a shield with Defensive. Either you parry, or you hide behind the shield, not both. But otherwise you should be able to fend off an attack with your item, and still have the armor (and applicable talents) in case it gets through. So I count the highest static source of Defense, and logically applicable items / talents, into a grand total for Melee and Ranged.

This doesn't work though if you think of things like a shield and armor. The idea that a guy who is butt nekked, but carrying a shield, is just as tough to kill as a guy in full armor AND a shield just baffles my brain on so many levels. It's 2 layers of stuff you have to try and get through. You might be able to glance past the shield on one swing....and then you clang on the armor. Or, he blocks your attack with the shield. To me, that translates as both of them working together to protect me, not independent of each other. I know that means the defense values of things would be much higher, and thus slow down combat, but the way the RAW is now just sort of boggles me.

I agree, which is why I said, they are re-evaluating those rules. The Dev reply was that you only get 1 source, regardless of what kind of source that may be. Since there are Items (like Armor) and Talents which flat out give you a defense, and other Items (like Lightsabers) and Talents which say they increase Melee or Ranged defense... his initial response was that you only get one of those things. If you have a Lightsaber with some measure of Defensive and/or Deflection, then your armor and shield would be meaningless.

But like I said, they are re-evaluating that answer. So in the meantime, we are left with a very old blurb in the original EoE FAQ, which basically alludes to the way we would all expect it to work.

If you have armor with Defense 1, and a Talent that grants Defense 2, then you take the better of those static values. You do not get to combine them.

If you have a Lightsaber with Defensive 1, and a Talent that also gives you Defensive 1, then those both add their effects to the static value from before. Which means you'd have Melee defense 3-4 (depending whether you opted for the talent or armor earlier). The wording for Defensive and Deflection is pretty clear. "Increases your defense" means it's adding to some existing value.

One Dev's response was that ANYTHING which refers to defense values, is a "source of defense". Which means you can EITHER wear a piece of armor, OR carry a weapon with Defensive, OR train a Talent which affects your Defense somehow... but you cannot combine any of those things in any fashion.

However, the wording of the book lends highly to the contrary. Armor is pretty straightforward. One piece gives you Defense 1 (which equates to Melee 1 / Ranged 1). Another piece gives you Defense 2 (2 / 2). Those cannot be stacked together to make 3, but you use the higher among them.

Defensive does not *give* you defense, it very specifically says it "increases" your defense. Which should mean that it improves whatever value you had otherwise. In which case, wearing armor with Defense 2 (2 / 2) and carrying something with Defensive 1, should total to 3 / 2 in the end.

This inconsistency has since been brought back to the Devs' attention, and they are supposed to be re-evaluating the rules. No word yet on when they will have a clarification whether ANYTHING is a source, or how to adjudicate which items contribute and when. So for the moment, it's basically up to the GM.

For my money, I don't think Defensive on both hands should add together. Like a sword with Defensive and a shield with Defensive. Either you parry, or you hide behind the shield, not both. But otherwise you should be able to fend off an attack with your item, and still have the armor (and applicable talents) in case it gets through. So I count the highest static source of Defense, and logically applicable items / talents, into a grand total for Melee and Ranged.

This doesn't work though if you think of things like a shield and armor. The idea that a guy who is butt nekked, but carrying a shield, is just as tough to kill as a guy in full armor AND a shield just baffles my brain on so many levels. It's 2 layers of stuff you have to try and get through. You might be able to glance past the shield on one swing....and then you clang on the armor. Or, he blocks your attack with the shield. To me, that translates as both of them working together to protect me, not independent of each other. I know that means the defense values of things would be much higher, and thus slow down combat, but the way the RAW is now just sort of boggles me.

It shouldn't baffle you any more than the guy in armor being as easy to hit as the guy in armor and behind cover. It is an abstract system so, sometimes, abstract happens. But no one's going to yell at you for changing it, either.

My gm is defense-friendly. We can survive more, fewer npc's needed to make a challenging encounter, and I don't think we've ever had a major npc go down too fast like so many have complained about on this forum.

In our campaign, our GM defines sources as cover, internal (talents, mostly), armor, and carried but there are some exceptions. So armor and cover stack fine but shield and defensive weapon won't. Having points from all of them gets interesting.

The core rules don't seem to be very Defense friendly. I've heard that the developers were worried about too many dice in a pool but you often toss a lot of dice at high levels as it is. A few more isn't hurting anyone, as fast as I know. I'm not sure what's wrong with lots of dice, anyway. If they're trying to protect my gaming table from dice dents, I appreciate it but we're ok.

I predict that the "new" defense rules will come to us in a Sentinel Landing Craft.

Either you parry, or you hide behind the shield, not both.

I just would like to remind that a combat check is not a single weapon swing or single shot (unlike other systems), but a series of attacks that either cause some damage, or none. On a single attack, you might dodge a few blows, parry some, get hit by something, etc.

So it makes perfect sense that you can use defensive stance, parry, block, roll around the target, all in a single check.

Down to one last question about Defense. So if you have multiple sources for Defense you pick the highest. Does this apply to Defensive as well? If you have multiple sources of defensive do you add them or just pick the highest?

Officially, it's still up in the air. We've been waiting for an official word for some time now, and not sure when we'll get said word.

In the meantime, go with what works best for your group. Personally, I let multiple sources stack (within reason), such as armored clothing with 2 ranks of the Defensive quality giving the character a Melee Defense of 3, provided the additional sources are worded along the lines of "increases" or "adds to" as opposed to "provides flat value X," such as ranged defense from cover and ranged defense from wearing armor not stacking at my table.

Down to one last question about Defense. So if you have multiple sources for Defense you pick the highest. Does this apply to Defensive as well? If you have multiple sources of defensive do you add them or just pick the highest?

Officially, it's still up in the air. We've been waiting for an official word for some time now, and not sure when we'll get said word.

In the meantime, go with what works best for your group. Personally, I let multiple sources stack (within reason), such as armored clothing with 2 ranks of the Defensive quality giving the character a Melee Defense of 3, provided the additional sources are worded along the lines of "increases" or "adds to" as opposed to "provides flat value X," such as ranged defense from cover and ranged defense from wearing armor not stacking at my table.

Seems reasonable to me.

Honestly, as easy as it is to get boost dice to attack rolls via accurate weapons, aiming, allies granting them with advantage, and what have you, tossing a few more setback into the mix isn't going to wildly unbalance the game. In my experience it's a far bigger problem either running out of dice or having so many dice in the pool that it's hard to pick them up to roll.

It just doesn't make sense that a guy in heavy battle armor that ducks behind a duracrete block loses his defensive bonus from his armor. I can see why there is a concern over defensive stacking but I have a hard time with this particular solution. I know this horse has been beaten ad mortem so I am really looking forward to what the devs might reveal to us as a fix.

I personally rule it however it makes sense, which usually means it stacks. Common sense and good storycrafting trump rules every time.

For my money, I don't think Defensive on both hands should add together. Like a sword with Defensive and a shield with Defensive. Either you parry, or you hide behind the shield, not both.

You ignore here happily that we roll for an action as in "doing a a sequence of attacks". And I totally get this, because I forget this as well very often, a round is going can go on for a minute or even longer. The whole duel of fates was just a few rounds, so I am pretty sure that you will use your sword and shield when defending against such a attack series. The question is: Should mechanically only count the higher bonus or not. Considering that there is hard cap on vehicle shields of 4, I don't see an issue with adding the highest static defensive value together with shield + sword defensive qualities as long as you simply cap the whole thing at, well 4. But luckily we get soon a new defense rule, which really is something clumsy in the rules. I understand they want to prevent to stack defense, but at the same time they really, really want to give a small bonus instead of making the defense values super high even when you do not wear armor, etc … will be interesting to see how they rework the whole system.

I predict that the "new" defense rules will come to us in a Sentinel Landing Craft.

Was there some kind of meaning/reference here that I'm missing or was it a random statement? Not meaning to be insulting here, just wondering how to interpret this (my "mild" case of Asperger's can make figuring that out hard sometimes)

I predict that the "new" defense rules will come to us in a Sentinel Landing Craft.

Was there some kind of meaning/reference here that I'm missing or was it a random statement? Not meaning to be insulting here, just wondering how to interpret this (my "mild" case of Asperger's can make figuring that out hard sometimes)

The stats for the Sentinel Landing Craft in the AoR Core are an acknowledged copy/paste error. Shortly after the release of the AoR Core, FFG said they would get the corrected ones out to us in the errata. That's been almost two years now, and there's no sign of the Sentinel yet.

Shortly after the release of the AoR Core, FFG said they would get the corrected ones out to us in the errata. That's been almost two years now, and there's no sign of the Sentinel yet.

Finally, a question I can ask the developers when they're on O66! Maybe every time. ಠ_ಠ

It just doesn't make sense that a guy in heavy battle armor that ducks behind a duracrete block loses his defensive bonus from his armor. I can see why there is a concern over defensive stacking but I have a hard time with this particular solution. I know this horse has been beaten ad mortem so I am really looking forward to what the devs might reveal to us as a fix.

I personally rule it however it makes sense, which usually means it stacks. Common sense and good storycrafting trump rules every time.

He doesn't lose it. He gets to choose which he wants to use, the cover, or his armor as the base, then things that "increase" should add to that.

I predict that the "new" defense rules will come to us in a Sentinel Landing Craft.

Was there some kind of meaning/reference here that I'm missing or was it a random statement? Not meaning to be insulting here, just wondering how to interpret this (my "mild" case of Asperger's can make figuring that out hard sometimes)

The stats for the Sentinel Landing Craft in the AoR Core are an acknowledged copy/paste error. Shortly after the release of the AoR Core, FFG said they would get the corrected ones out to us in the errata. That's been almost two years now, and there's no sign of the Sentinel yet.

Yes, there was a reply somewhere with the correct stats. I can't remember where but I know we got it, because I made a point of pencilling the new stats into the core book. I definitely didn't just pull them out of thin air, there was an official response somewhere.

I predict that the "new" defense rules will come to us in a Sentinel Landing Craft.

Was there some kind of meaning/reference here that I'm missing or was it a random statement? Not meaning to be insulting here, just wondering how to interpret this (my "mild" case of Asperger's can make figuring that out hard sometimes)

The stats for the Sentinel Landing Craft in the AoR Core are an acknowledged copy/paste error. Shortly after the release of the AoR Core, FFG said they would get the corrected ones out to us in the errata. That's been almost two years now, and there's no sign of the Sentinel yet.

Yes, there was a reply somewhere with the correct stats. I can't remember where but I know we got it, because I made a point of pencilling the new stats into the core book. I definitely didn't just pull them out of thin air, there was an official response somewhere.

If you can share them, along with a source, that would be great.

I think the stats for the Sentinel are in the Beta.

I think the stats for the Sentinel are in the Beta.

They are/were but Beta stats are not final stats. I've playtested plenty enough to know that final stats can be changed, so I'd like an official word on what the final stats on the Sentinel are intended to be.

It just doesn't make sense that a guy in heavy battle armor that ducks behind a duracrete block loses his defensive bonus from his armor. I can see why there is a concern over defensive stacking but I have a hard time with this particular solution. I know this horse has been beaten ad mortem so I am really looking forward to what the devs might reveal to us as a fix.

I personally rule it however it makes sense, which usually means it stacks. Common sense and good storycrafting trump rules every time.

He doesn't lose it. He gets to choose which he wants to use, the cover, or his armor as the base, then things that "increase" should add to that.

I understand the rule, but I disagree with it; if Gumbo the Marauder wears heavy battle armor (1 Defense) ducks being a duracrete pylon that offers 2 Defense, the rules dictate that Gumbo the Marauder has a defense of 2 if he choses wisely. In my mind, that means that a successful shot penetrates the duracrete pylon and just magically penetrates the armor as well. If the limit to Defense is meant as a tool to prevent large dice pools, well that's already going to happen and one more die isn't really going to throw that off too much.

It makes absolute sense if one is trying to stack armor - e.g. wearing laminate armor under a smuggler's trench coat. It seems to me this is what the rules are trying to prevent, and environmental factors are an unintended victim. I would find it more plausible that a duracrete pylon would increase Defense, not replace it.

Anyway, this horse has been beaten into a fine paste over the past few years, no need to continue to rehash it one more time.

It's more the cover rules were to give characters that don't invest in armour a way to get def. in the ot most the time wookie fur and a jacket was best blaster def.

I'm pretty sure the Devs said the whole reason behind not letting them stack was so dice pools didn't get too big so trying to apply any other logic to explain it is just apologetic reverse-engineering. Just do what feels right at your gaming table. I promise not to tattle. And don't listen to my brother if he says not to believe me when I say I won't tattle. When he tries to stuff you in the drier after tricking you into promising not to tell, you have to tell!!!

It just doesn't make sense that a guy in heavy battle armor that ducks behind a duracrete block loses his defensive bonus from his armor. I can see why there is a concern over defensive stacking but I have a hard time with this particular solution. I know this horse has been beaten ad mortem so I am really looking forward to what the devs might reveal to us as a fix.

I personally rule it however it makes sense, which usually means it stacks. Common sense and good storycrafting trump rules every time.

He doesn't lose it. He gets to choose which he wants to use, the cover, or his armor as the base, then things that "increase" should add to that.

I understand the rule, but I disagree with it; if Gumbo the Marauder wears heavy battle armor (1 Defense) ducks being a duracrete pylon that offers 2 Defense, the rules dictate that Gumbo the Marauder has a defense of 2 if he choses wisely. In my mind, that means that a successful shot penetrates the duracrete pylon and just magically penetrates the armor as well. If the limit to Defense is meant as a tool to prevent large dice pools, well that's already going to happen and one more die isn't really going to throw that off too much.

It makes absolute sense if one is trying to stack armor - e.g. wearing laminate armor under a smuggler's trench coat. It seems to me this is what the rules are trying to prevent, and environmental factors are an unintended victim. I would find it more plausible that a duracrete pylon would increase Defense, not replace it.

Anyway, this horse has been beaten into a fine paste over the past few years, no need to continue to rehash it one more time.

If Gumbo would have kept his head behind that duracrete pylon, nobody would have gotten even a shot at him, but unfortunately for him he kept pecking out a few times to shoot himself and thus shooting him was harder than without the cover, but still just needed to penetrate that armor. Besides Laminate Armor gives zero defense anyway. So you get one defense from the smugglers coat, you get the hidden pockets and irrc soak stacks if it is not from the same source.

This was mentioned in the thread for OggDude's character generator, but it bears mention here.

If the devs are concerned about dice pools getting too big, then they not only need to look at how defense is calculated, but at how easy it is for an attacker to start racking up boost dice as well. Double Aim and weapons with a couple ranks of the Accurate quality is four boost dice right there, and there's probably various combinations of mods and specs that could add even more boost dice to that attack roll. And even if there are multiple setback dice, there's still a very good chance that they're not going to have any impact on the roll, especially against a really skilled opponent, which I'd peg as having at least four proficiency dice in their combat skill and an easy means to add a boost die or two.

Personally, I think Haley's GM has the right idea in specifically designating what the sources of defense are in their games, and using that to avoid too much defense stacking. I also like it because it generally matches up to how I handle sources of defense in my games.

To be honest, I wonder if part of the concern is the Defensive Training talent introduced in Force and Destiny, of which a PC can take multiple ranks across multiple LS Form specs and get a melee weapon that's got Defensive 4 (2 from Niman, 1 from Makashi, 1 from Shii-Cho). So it sounds the real problem that needs to be looked at is the Defensive (and by extension Deflection) weapon qualities in terms of keeping defense scores from getting to out of control.

I predict that the "new" defense rules will come to us in a Sentinel Landing Craft.

Was there some kind of meaning/reference here that I'm missing or was it a random statement? Not meaning to be insulting here, just wondering how to interpret this (my "mild" case of Asperger's can make figuring that out hard sometimes)

The stats for the Sentinel Landing Craft in the AoR Core are an acknowledged copy/paste error. Shortly after the release of the AoR Core, FFG said they would get the corrected ones out to us in the errata. That's been almost two years now, and there's no sign of the Sentinel yet.

Yes, there was a reply somewhere with the correct stats. I can't remember where but I know we got it, because I made a point of pencilling the new stats into the core book. I definitely didn't just pull them out of thin air, there was an official response somewhere.

If you can share them, along with a source, that would be great.

Like I said, I don't remember where I got this from - it was over a year ago, if I recall correctly - but here are the stats:

(I'll just write the stuff that's actually different from the misprinted stat block.)

Sensor range: Close.

Ship's complement: One pilot, one co-pilot, 3 gunners.

Encumbrance capacity: 500 (without passengers).

Passenger capacity: 54.

Consumables: 1 month.

Price/rarity: 240,000 credits ®/7.

Customization hardpoints: 0.

Weapons:

Forward-mounted medium laser cannons (Fire arc forward, damage 6, critical 3, range [close], Linked 3).

Turret-mounted twin light ion cannons (damage 5, critical 4, range [close], Ion, Linked 1),

Turret-mounted retractable heavy repeating blaster (damage 15, critical 2, range [long], Auto-Fire, Pierce 2, Vicious 1, character scape),

Concussion missiles (no additional stats, I ran out of page space but presumably the stock stat block).