Yes, I realize that this game breaks down when it comes to throwing Fistfuls of Dice, but green dice don’t cancel purple dice, and yellow dice don’t cancel red dice.

There's already a cap on all those, you can't get more than 6 on either side. The dilemma comes from being able to purchase items and abilities which give you a ton more Boost / Setback dice to work with in addition.

In that case, I would suggest putting a cap on the total number of Boost or Setback dice that are allowed, instead of having them cancel each other out.

Of course, with enough upgrades, I can still fairly easily get up to eight or nine yellow dice in a roll, even if the cap for Attributes is 7 (including cybernetics) and the cap for Skills is 5.

So why are you comfortable with your Sniper having +6, but you disagree with his target having +6 Defense? Why put caps and limitations on defending against an attack, while you permit improving the attack. That's only going to lead to min/max'ing entirely towards the attack.

If you capped both, then people would stop buying bonuses for either side once they reached that cap. If you leave both uncapped, they will purchase bonuses for both sides, which will balance itself out through increasing costs. But capping one side and leaving the other open means they'll stop at the cap and spend everything else towards the free rein attack dice.

Im not advocating capping either I have just said talents and weapon qualities do not stack. So if we take of the attackers nearest relative to defensive or deflection, which is accurate, then it doesnt stack either. So if they were dual wielding pistols or melee weapons with accurate 2 they arent getting to stack that up to 4 dice either. So how is this unfair on the defender.

Instead you take the accurate 2 from your main weapon and two auto-advantages from your offhand weapon, with maybe a few damage mods on top of it and ignore the setback dice which come from this. Not stacking, well you are kind of right while while wrong at the same time. ;-)

One easy way to handle this would be to treat personal defence dice the way you treat starship defence dice: there's a hard cap of 4 setback dice for defence, regardless of sourse. As for boost dice, I have a rule at my table that each player can only pass along AND benefit from one "give a boost die to the next active character" and one "give a boost die to a specific character" options on the table. Otherwise I could very easily see someone rolling 5 advantage on a check and using it all to give the next characte 5 boost dice, who would in turn roll 8 advantage and pass along 8 boost dice, and so on...

One easy way to handle this would be to treat personal defence dice the way you treat starship defence dice: there's a hard cap of 4 setback dice for defence, regardless of sourse. As for boost dice, I have a rule at my table that each player can only pass along AND benefit from one "give a boost die to the next active character" and one "give a boost die to a specific character" options on the table. Otherwise I could very easily see someone rolling 5 advantage on a check and using it all to give the next characte 5 boost dice, who would in turn roll 8 advantage and pass along 8 boost dice, and so on...

Hypothetically, this could happen, but in practice this sort of chaining doesn't really seem to happen often even when characters are rolling a lot of boost (with his primary rifle, my character almost always has at least four boost and generally ends up with between six to eight).

For starters the dice are fairly random in that regard and, while some exploding advantage does occasionally occur, it's just as likely that you won't get anywhere near as many advantage as the previous person due to rolling blanks and successes instead of advantage.

Also, most of the people at my table seem to prioritize activating weapon qualities, generating two-weapon fighting/linked/auto-fire hits, and scoring criticals over handing out boost dice to other player. If boost are handed out, it's generally only because there weren't enough advantage rolled to activate a critical after weapon qualities have been accounted for.

YMMV, though, I guess. Not sure I've ever played at a table where more than one or two of the players were interested in passing a lot of buffs to other characters that they could be using themselves.

Instead you take the accurate 2 from your main weapon and two auto-advantages from your offhand weapon, with maybe a few damage mods on top of it and ignore the setback dice which come from this. Not stacking, well you are kind of right while while wrong at the same time. ;-)

Edit : on reading this I fear it might be taken out of context, its a serious question and not an attempt to be sarcastic etc. So please take it as it is meant. I just do not understand the relevanve of bringing up auto advantage unless you are trying to list all the weapon qualities and their effects, because if that is the case why dont we just compare every possible defensive talent, quality, or ability or force power in the game , just combining max sense , 2 ranks of side step, 2 ranks of dodge, is upgrading the attackers check 6 times. it's hard to get similar upgrades for offence, but again all this has nothing to do with stacking qualities

Instead you take the accurate 2 from your main weapon and two auto-advantages from your offhand weapon, with maybe a few damage mods on top of it and ignore the setback dice which come from this. Not stacking, well you are kind of right while while wrong at the same time. ;-)

Sorry but I miss your point, what has this to do with qualities not stacking with each other.

Edit : on reading this I fear it might be taken out of context, its a serious question and not an attempt to be sarcastic etc. So please take it as it is meant. I just do not understand the relevanve of bringing up auto advantage unless you are trying to list all the weapon qualities and their effects, because if that is the case why dont we just compare every possible defensive talent, quality, or ability or force power in the game , just combining max sense , 2 ranks of side step, 2 ranks of dodge, is upgrading the attackers check 6 times. it's hard to get similar upgrades for offence, but again all this has nothing to do with stacking qualities

The point was that your example for not stacking weapon qualities rarely occurs, because players instead use weapons which bring effects which do stack when dual wielding. Like for example the superior quality, which brings two auto-advantage when you can activate the second weapon. And those qualities do indeed stack. You just can not stack qualities when assembling your dice pool, as you assemble that pool for your main weapon, you can not stack qualities which apply to a single hit either (like pierce for example), but you can stack qualities which change the interpretation of the result.Not a big point, just a little nitpicking.

If you bring in all those then you have to start including allbthe defensive talents that do stack how many difficulty upgrades can be applied using talents like dodge/ defensive stance/ side step or talents like Baleful Gaze or the the force skill sense. With just a relatively small amount of xp it woukd be easy enought to get 5 or more upgrade s, in this game players are supposed to be csh strapped , how do they get 2 superior weapons (and id call the auto advantage doessnt apply twice , I could understand that the mechanical effects woukd apply individually as it affects the stats ofnthe weapon but the advantage would only be one on the roll, given that I have already stated weapon qualities dont stack.

Basically the check is based off one weapon and the advantage triggers a shot from the second weapon, so the second weapons superior doesnt come into play until the actual hit is applied, so technically it could be used to trigger the 2nd weapons other qualities if the second weapon hits. Iirc this was the way it was described at some point by a dev on the order 66 podcast.

All being equal the amount of upgrades that can applied on the difficulty of the checj is insane in comparison with anything else.

And being cash strapped and gaining tens of thousands credits at the end of an official adventure sounds like you are not that cash strapped, while at the same time needing a lot more credits to survive. If you are always to poor to invest 10,000 credits in your two personal guns than why are those 45,000 credit guns even in the game or 50,000c homesteads.

And you might decide that superior does not stack, Sam thought otherwise, while the second superior does not apply to the first hit, it applies for the second one you activated the second weapon. Which means in that moment not only superior works, but as well banta eye, the second linked on that weapon or whatever. Personally I would not have ruled this that way either, but I find it acceptable and not out of line with the rest of the system which is very much about stacking up upgrades. Especially stuff like dodge, sidestep and other stuff which upgrades the difficulty of a check seems very essential to the survivability of PCs, rivals and nemesis. Hitting someone without those talents is hard, hitting someone who adds 8 upgrades to your role might sometimes be reaching impossible. (2 destiny spend and a formidable role ;-))

This is the real "defense" for vehicles and characters in the game, the defense quality itself does help a lot though, at the same time you could cap those those simply to 4 like in starship combat without screwing up the system. I am totally with you when you say the upgrades on difficulty checks can become insane, which is a very good reason to have so many sources for bonus dice as well.

I still dont see where we are going with this either way, all Ive said is tha multiple sources of defensive dont stack. There are still wuite a few sources of defense , certainly enough to get about 4 setback die(from equipment) and 1 or 2 more from talents, another from prone, or from the defensive maneuver you can do. So okay there are a few more offensive ways of boosting , but to be honest not that much more, but then theres the upgraded checks.

As for the verpine scatter gun you quote nobody is going to buy that, its in age of rebellion where your rank can allow you to call upon a corvette, would you like to have your hands on a gun that the GM can cause 10000credits worth of damage for rolling a threat. The 50 K homesteads are for high level groups or to be a replacement to be used in place of your 120k credit ship that is your resource in edge given to a group at the start of the game. A homestead would take a massive group buy in to get and at the end of day is narrative tool for further adventures.

Again I ask, what does all this have to do with not being to keep stacking the defensive quality by using multiple equipment.

Not a big point, just a little nitpicking.

Ahhh, thats okay then

IMO, Armour is always applied, but you use the highest Defensive granted by your weapon/shield

IMO, Armour is always applied, but you use the highest Defensive granted by your weapon/shield

That's how I run it. Armour stacks with weapon or shield if applicable, but not both - you pick the highest.

In my opinion those black dice don't do enough to make stacking them overpowered. Half the time they will come up blank anyway.

A third* of the time, actually.

A third* of the time, actually.

Well. statistically it's a third of the time.

But I've seen players roll multiple times in the course of a session where the setback dice have always come up with something, be it a failure or more often a threat.

Conversely, I've been in a group with a player for whom boost dice routinely come up blank (it's almost assured that at least half the boost dice he rolls come up nothing), which should statistically only happen rarely given 5 of the 6 sides will produce some kind of result. One rather memorable result had him rolling 6 boost dice (Accurate weapon, double aim, boost from three PCs) and all six of them coming up blank.

Personally, I seem to be quite lucky when it comes to challenge dice, as those will often come up blank, and I can count the number of times that I as a player have rolled a Despair result on a combat check.

So Zar's experience with setback coming up blank 'half the time' can certainly be true from his perspective based upon experience of how the dice turn out.

This gets to the heart of why I really dislike Armor as a stat used for Defense in the first place... in ANY system. It's never made sense to me.

Armor - to me - reads more as a method for damage mitigation. What I mean is - you either get hit, or you don't. If you don't - fine. Nothing happens. If you do, then that's why you wear armor - so the damage is not as bad.

I know it's not in the rules, and I don't know if this would even remotely be mathematically viable in the system - but could it not be a possibly effective House Rule sort of thing to just say:

Armor/Shield does not give you a Defense Bonus. It only applies a Soak Bonus.

All other forms of Defense DO stack.

So, from the only Defense you can ever get is from Cover, the Defensive Trait, or a Weapon Quality.

Cover is always available. It's only a Maneuver to get it. That's not a big deal to obtain. So, that's 1 SBD. Maybe spend 2 Maneuvers to get 2 SBD.

Each rank in the Trait increases Defense. So each time you get it, you gain one SBD to attacks made against you. Unless you're really trying to stack this, most players aren't going to be effected by this.

And then the Weapon Quality. This would be especially useful in Melee situations where Cover doesn't apply anyway.

So there, it stacks, but Armor and Shields don't apply Defense.

Clears up a lot of this mess if you ask me. But again, I don't know if this is reasonable in the system that is actually built. It just sounds reasonable in logical approach.

Thing is, armor can effectively help keep you from getting hit. What could have been a nasty blow without armor might just glance off the armor with virtually no damage at all to you or the armor.

Or the armor could have a coating or a cover that makes you harder to see/hear/sense, and therefore helps make you harder to hit.

Besides, in this game, armor is never going to add more than one or two points of defense (setback dice on the attack against you).

If you want to redesign the entire combat system for this game, and make sure it is balanced with regards to everything that has been introduced so far, and everything that is planned to be introduced in the future, you’re welcome to go ahead and try to do that.

But IMO, that’s a lot of work for little or no measurable benefit.

Firstly remember this is a narrative system not something like DND where a roll equals a specific action. Armor may make it so hit doesn't get through, - "A barrage of bolts are fired towards you, the majority miss, one hits you on the chest but the deflective coating on your armorweave saves the day leaving you unharmed" or the soak comes into play, "A barrage of bolts are fired towards you, a number of them hit , luckily for you your armor absorbed most of the blasts, however a blast catches you at the elbow where the coverage isn't complete, you smart at the burn you receive, but you have no time to worry about that now and fight through the pain, take 4 wounds". Or whatever is appropriate.

Firstly remember this is a narrative system not something like DND where a roll equals a specific action. Armor may make it so hit doesn't get through, - "A barrage of bolts are fired towards you, the majority miss, one hits you on the chest but the deflective coating on your armorweave saves the day leaving you unharmed" or the soak comes into play, "A barrage of bolts are fired towards you, a number of them hit , luckily for you your armor absorbed most of the blasts, however a blast catches you at the elbow where the coverage isn't complete, you smart at the burn you receive, but you have no time to worry about that now and fight through the pain, take 4 wounds". Or whatever is appropriate.

Reminds me of our last session, the GM was attacking our spider-murder-astro-bot with a personal shield generator. She forgot about the defense dice, rolled them afterwards and changing several hits into misses, describing how the blaster bolts kept bouncing of the shields like they would from a droideka, which even has the same kind of spiderlegs as our astromech has … just our RX has more of them, a lot more.

So yeah, soak from armor is reducing damage which stil penetrates while setback dice from armor stand per glancing blows based on defensive values of the armor, like it is for example the case with shields in this system.

Thing is, armor can effectively help keep you from getting hit. What could have been a nasty blow without armor might just glance off the armor with virtually no damage at all to you or the armor.

Or the armor could have a coating or a cover that makes you harder to see/hear/sense, and therefore helps make you harder to hit.

Besides, in this game, armor is never going to add more than one or two points of defense (setback dice on the attack against you).

If you want to redesign the entire combat system for this game, and make sure it is balanced with regards to everything that has been introduced so far, and everything that is planned to be introduced in the future, you’re welcome to go ahead and try to do that.

But IMO, that’s a lot of work for little or no measurable benefit.

I don't think it's a complete redesign of the system. I'm not sure how what I said translates into that, even. All I'm saying is that Armor and Shields shouldn't apply Defense Bonus, and all other sources should stack. Nothing else really changes. Since some people have house ruled that it stacks anyway, then there's no reason why not counting Armor should really even matter.

If the problem with stacking Defense is that it gets too high, then alleviate some of the variables, and then it wouldn't be. Then you can afford to have a system of stacking that makes sense in every scenario that people have expressed in this thread.

"It doesn't make sense that standing in cover negates my armor."

"It doesn't make sense that my Trait negates my shield."

"It doesn't make sense that my armor negates cover."

Well... you don't understand it, because it DOESN'T make sense. And the tricky part is, people have just accepted that it's supposed to. Stop it. Stop trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense, lol. And so if it doesn't make sense - remove the problem.

Removing the Defense stat from Armor and Shields, and stacking all other sources of Defense solves every single one of these problems without being over-powered.

Armor applying a Defense bonus, at least in my mind, is one of those things in RPG's that have been around since forever, and for whatever reasons, designers simply won't get away from it, when it's pretty clear that it doesn't have to be there in the first place.

I don't know about any of the upcoming changes. I'm just talking about what people are expressing in this forum in combination with what I have experienced. Whatever the changes are, I'm pretty certain that it will be just another convoluted mess that makes something very simple infinitely more complicated than it needs to be.

Most games don't account for things like glancing blows outside of the damage roll. More specifically, FFG:SW simply doesn't account for that. So Armor being able to shirk off certain attacks that just didn't hit correctly or whatever - that's narrative fluff that has no real representative value in the mechanics and is not represented in any of the dice rolls.

For example, for an attack to be constituted as a glancing blow with Armor being part of the Defense formula, "glancing blows" have to be calculated in the "To Hit" formula. The problem with this is that the "To Hit" formula in most systems (including FFG:SW and all iterations of D&D) is that it is completely binary. There is no "You sort of get hit, but sort of don't." It's "Yes, you are hit," or, "No, you are not hit." Glancing blows aren't even a factor. They exist only in narrative fluff. Which is fine, but if you have to do that, then the mechanics aren't doing their job.

So in your illustration of glancing blows, Armor as a Defense component simply doesn't exist within that paradigm. It only exists in the Soak value, otherwise known as Damage Mitigation.

Which is fine. There's no reason why it shouldn't be. If a glancing blow by your definition is, "An attack that doesn't do as much damage as it normally would," - that's Damage Mitigation, not Defense, in the first place.

As for the other scenarios - all of that sounds like a Special Feature or Quality of the Armor itself, and not directly an obvious quality of Armor in general.

If you REALLY wanted to get technical with it, you could also apply certain Qualities that do those types of things. Maybe there's even a quality that allows you to apply a Defense Bonus.

All I'm saying is that in general, Defense applied to Armor as a base function, never has and never will make sense. And game designers should start realizing it.

As for the other scenarios - all of that sounds like a Special Feature or Quality of the Armor itself, and not directly an obvious quality of Armor in general.

Raice, I think you should play how you want to play. I say, try your house rule out and see how much fun it is or isn't for you and your group.

This overly-long fight I picked way back when suggests I tend to agree with your simulationist leanings, especially when it comes to combat.

But you're wrong about how armor works. Armor--a lot of it, though not all of it--absolutely is designed to deflect or redirect energy, to make you literally harder to hit in a way that transfers force into your body. Rounded surfaces, flexible lames/lamellae, and even slippery coatings have been used in armor since its beginning to add to the wearer's "active" defense. Take a look at European jousting helmets or Japanese kusazuri for great examples of this. The real surprise to me, in FFG's system, is that Defense isn't more common than Soak, especially given how often characters in the films rely on avoiding damage rather than absorbing and pushing through it.

I think that there is definitely something to armor having both soak and defense. It is a bit simplistic but it gives a two tier system. Armor appears to be made up of soak (think leather jacket or duster, this absorbs some dmg , however there are materials that can deflect blows , example a glancing blow with a knife will slide off the material yet a straight on hit will pass right through. There are other examples , like certain reactive materials that wilk tear if you slowly put a knife through it but high impact projectiles or somoone trying a powerful stab will find they cannot cut through.

I think that there is definitely something to armor having both soak and defense. It is a bit simplistic but it gives a two tier system. Armor appears to be made up of soak (think leather jacket or duster, this absorbs some dmg , however there are materials that can deflect blows , example a glancing blow with a knife will slide off the material yet a straight on hit will pass right through. There are other examples , like certain reactive materials that wilk tear if you slowly put a knife through it but high impact projectiles or somoone trying a powerful stab will find they cannot cut through.

I can confirm that heavy leather jacks do not absorb damage from a knife thrust, but instead are simply hard enough to create harmless glancing strikes for attacks with non-optimal blade alignments. They would absorb very little against a properly executing stab, but a not 100% correct stab can just slide off on thick, hard leather. That would be indeed best represented by defense. Against a cut the sliding off from a improper executed cut can still happen, but you have as well first cut through the leather before you cut cloth and flesh. That is the soak component of armor.

We are playing within a system with is intentionally very abstract, so I am actually impressed that they could incorporate such a semi-realistic system which combines defensive stats of damage avoidance with damage absorbtion and make it work very simple. Now if they just would have found a the right balance to distribute those defense and soak values onto talents and items … not really done very elegant ;-)

All I'm saying is that Armor and Shields shouldn't apply Defense Bonus, and all other sources should stack. Nothing else really changes.

In other words:

Other than that, Mrs Lincoln — what did you think of the play?

If you change two of the most basic things about how armor and shields work, you can’t really follow that up with “Nothing else really changes.” The technical term for that is “Non sequitur”.

Feel free to make whatever changes you want in your game — it is your game, after all.

But the FFG developers have spent years trying to achieve an optimal balance of all the components that go into their official version of this game, including many components that have not yet been published. If you’re going to throw out two fundamental assumptions upon which a lot of the rest of their work depends, you have to decide how you’re going to handle the consequences. And you have to consider at what point you’re no longer playing something that can be called by the same name.

However, at the end of the day, it’s still your game and you should run it the way you want.