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.

If that's what Gumbo's PC says he's doing, sure. Anyway, we're not going to solve it here. At the table, I solve it case by case with what makes sense.

And you are recalling correctly, sources of soak do stack! (unless they are the same source, Eote Core pg 207)

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.

If that's what Gumbo's PC says he's doing, sure. Anyway, we're not going to solve it here. At the table, I solve it case by case with what makes sense.

And you are recalling correctly, sources of soak do stack! (unless they are the same source, Eote Core pg 207)

Just to add to that, shooting through cover is been mentioned for the sonic scope and this can add extra soak.

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.

The problem is thinking that each action starts and ends on its own. If he's truly hiding behind the column for his whole turn (doesn't ever lean out to shoot or anything) then yes, the bolts would have to hit and take out the column to hurt the character. That wouldn't be Defense, that would be at least added Soak to the character. If, however, the player does something other than move behind the column, then they are vulnerable at various points in the turn and that's where the shots are connecting in and the columns Defense value just represents it blocking sight to part of the body that is behind it.

Welcome to narrative time in combat where all actions of all actors go off simultaneously.

The problem is thinking that each action starts and ends on its own. If he's truly hiding behind the column for his whole turn (doesn't ever lean out to shoot or anything) then yes, the bolts would have to hit and take out the column to hurt the character. That wouldn't be Defense, that would be at least added Soak to the character. If, however, the player does something other than move behind the column, then they are vulnerable at various points in the turn and that's where the shots are connecting in and the columns Defense value just represents it blocking sight to part of the body that is behind it.

Welcome to narrative time in combat where all actions of all actors go off simultaneously.

Bwahahaha, thanks! The first RPG I wrote featured this style of mechanic, albeit crude because I didn't know then what I know now. I'm fond systems using that philosophy.

Everything depends on the narration, and of course I rule however it makes sense. I get the rule, I get that we disagree, and we could cite example after example that could reinforce either opinion. It makes me tired just thinking about it.

Mentioned this in another thread before seeing this one.

I disagree with the notion that letting defenses stack is a bad thing.

I understand that it may be a bad thing for dice blout. I get that. Or even at beginner to "Knight" level play.

However, the game is already HEAVILY favors offensive dice pools as is.

For example; the blue dice do not equal the black dice. PLUS almost all sources that increase the offense dice pools, stack. While Defense does not.

In our game*, we let all sources of defense stack. Because if we did not, the game would quickly turn into a game of rocket tag.

Meaning everyone would have ridiculously high initiatives dice pools in order to make sure we go first, insuring we get to kill the bad guys before they can return fire on us.

I love the game, really do. But, IMHO, it does not scale well.

*Our earned exp almost at 4 digits

I suspect the intention of the rules is what was play tested and having mere Defense stacking will change game balance away from what they originally intended. Now that may not actually be a bad thing, but without testing they are unlikely to even comment on it

One easy rule to implement to tackle dice bloat is to give Aim a 3rd option to Remove Setback from a check. It not only reduces the number of Boost it reduces setback, essentially removing 2 dice from the check. The roblem there is space combat where there is a much lower possibility for defence stacking, so maybe only available for personal scale.

The errata simply says that if something provides static defense like armor or cover then you can choose to use the higher of the 2 , so for example someone with armoured clothing gets the same protection as cover (talent effects not withstanding). Anything that is worded as adding to defense insted of giving a defense value is added. This is covered in the current errata and also been confirmed in interviews.

Example , somone in partial cover has defense 1 , if they had jedi temple guard armor which gives 2 defense then the cover is not normally needed as the armor "gives" defense 2. Now either person using a defensive 1 weapon has an addition of 1 to the melee defense value so 2 in the first instance, and 3 in the second. The current errata and more recent printings of the book explain this.

Edit the problem was originally that the core book was not worded as giving defense value x, and was errata'd to do so, meaning armor and cover could not stack. Some talents , esp in f&d, are worded as giving defense value x so if you had rank 3 in that talent you would start with defense 3 before adding things like deflection or defensive abilities meaning battle armor and cover to you are as good as standing out in the open with padded armor on. This is narrated by explaining that the talent or weapon ability armor cover that provides your def value at the time are as effective as a, b or c. Ie someone using a shield gauntlet and no heavy clothing is as good as someone wearing temple guard armor or someone with armored clothing and a deflective 1 item, comparatively they are the same.

The errata simply says that if something provides static defense like armor or cover then you can choose to use the higher of the 2 , so for example someone with armoured clothing gets the same protection as cover (talent effects not withstanding). Anything that is worded as adding to defense instead of giving a defense value is added. This is covered in the current errata and also been confirmed in interviews.

Example , someone in partial cover has defense 1 , if they had jedi temple guard armor which gives 2 defense then the cover is not normally needed as the armor "gives" defense 2. Now either person using a defensive 1 weapon has an addition of 1 to the melee defense value so 2 in the first instance, and 3 in the second. The current errata and more recent printings of the book explain this.

Edit the problem was originally that the core book was not worded as giving defense value x, and was errata'd to do so, meaning armor and cover could not stack. Some talents , esp in f&d, are worded as giving defense value x so if you had rank 3 in that talent you would start with defense 3 before adding things like deflection or defensive abilities meaning battle armor and cover to you are as good as standing out in the open with padded armor on. This is narrated by explaining that the talent or weapon ability armor cover that provides your def value at the time are as effective as a, b or c. Ie someone using a shield gauntlet and no heavy clothing is as good as someone wearing temple guard armor or someone with armored clothing and a deflective 1 item, comparatively they are the same.

Which all sounds well and good... until you take the "official" answer that Sam provided a while back. In which he was presented with a scenario similar to what you describe. A character wearing certain kinds of armor, with certain talents, and a lightsaber with Defensive mods. And his answer at the time (which I believe has since been "recinded" and put up for reconsideration) was that ONLY the lightsaber counted. His answer was that the armor, and each talent, and the lightsaber itself, each counted as separate "sources of defense" and thus could not combine. So you had to run the math on each item individually, decide which single "source" provided the best benefit, and outright ignore the rest.

I agree with you, that you would choose the best piece of armor, or perhaps the best bit of cover, and then your talents and Defensive items should enhance that. But his initial answer was that ONLY one of those things can ever apply.

Which brings us here... to yet another thread discussing "house ruling" something more sensible with the wording of the rules.

That talent I believe is called defensive training. Im a little unsure of this but if someone can confirm from a first print copy didnt this used to give you a defense rating, because one of my players has that copy, now it gives you the defensive quaility. Which means that someone with a vibrosword and defensive training rank 1 wont stack but would gain +1 to the melee defense rating on top of of the given defense rating. If im correct with the earlier wording then because armor, cover and this talent "give" defense rating x they dont stack now that its worded to give defensive then it stacks exept with other sources of defensive.

Regardless I hope they put the errata out to clear it up

Sixth Sense gives ranged defense +1 and Superior Reflexes give melee defense +1.

Defensive Training gives a weapon a defense rating equal to the number of ranks in Defensive Training the character has, which replaces any Defensive quality the weapon already has.

And under the most current ruling, it would seem that if you wear armor with a defense bonus, the talents Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes are worthless, since they'd count as a separate source of defense.

And under the most current ruling, it would seem that if you wear armor with a defense bonus, the talents Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes are worthless, since they'd count as a separate source of defense.

The talents are worded in a way that it's clear they are intended to increase an existing defense rating. So, yes, the talents would be completely worthless if having an existing defense rating meant they couldn't be applied.

However, that ruling would also defeat the purpose of the talents and be strictly against the way the rules for the talents are intended to function. If the devs want us to count them as a non-stacking separate source of defense, the devs are a bunch of nerf herders!

And under the most current ruling, it would seem that if you wear armor with a defense bonus, the talents Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes are worthless, since they'd count as a separate source of defense.

The talents are worded in a way that it's clear they are intended to increase an existing defense rating. So, yes, the talents would be completely worthless if having an existing defense rating meant they couldn't be applied.

However, that ruling would also defeat the purpose of the talents and be strictly against the way the rules for the talents are intended to function. If the devs want us to count them as a non-stacking separate source of defense, the devs are a bunch of nerf herders!

Well, here's the thing. The Defensive and Deflection qualities both have similar wording, in that they add to a character's existing defense rating.

Since both Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes were introduced in the EotE Beta, I again have the feeling that things didn't start to get out of hand with calculating defense until the introduction of the Defensive Training talent as well as various weapons with multiple ranks of Defensive.

I've got a FaD PC with Improved Parry, three ranks of Defensive Training (1 from Shii-Cho Knight, 2 from Niman Disciple), armored clothing, and a fairly tricked-out Ilum crystal for his basic lightsaber, so melee defense of 4 means I've got a decent shot at getting Improved Parry to trigger (more so if I include Sense and the defensive Control upgrade), leading to a pretty nasty bonk that can blow through most opponents' wounds in a hurry. But if this same PC added an off-hand 'saber, by strict reading of the errata, he'd have a melee defense of 7 (1 from armor, +3 from primary hand lightsaber, +3 from secondary hand lightsaber). So I do agree with the devs that this needs to be reviewed, but I wonder if they're just being overly cautious when the simplest fix would be "multiple sources of Defensive and Deflection don't stack." This, talents like Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes are still very nice and can be used in tandem with armor.

A defense of four is pretty good but it's fair.

Honestly, trying the double the bonus granted by Defensive Training by dual-wielding, however, sounds questionable and against the fair-use of the talent. A better solution for this particular problem would simply be to only allow the talent to apply to one weapon at a time.

Still, though, this character would hardly be game-breaking even with seven Defensive dice. He'll be burning through strain extremely quickly if he has to parry multiple attacks against him in a given round. He does actually have to activate Parry and pay the strain cost in order to use Improved Parry, after all. Sure, he'll have all those defense dice to help him get Threat and Despair to activate Improved Parry, but they won't do him a whole lot of good when he's hovering right above his strain threshold or if all those setback dice mean that the attacks fail to connect in the first place (thus preventing him from activating Parry). Meanwhile, all those ranks of Defensive Training and Parry are useless against ranged attacks.

I ran into this problem, myself, last weekend. Due to positioning and some tactical choices, my character was facing down a group of four combat droids who were trying to beat me to a pulp. Only having a single melee defense dice, I was relying on two ranks in Dodge to save my bacon. Eating eight strain every round for three rounds was extremely taxing and, as such, I wasn't able to activate any weapon qualities or crits with my own attacks because I was forced to use all the advantage I generated just to heal strain (or face a dirt nap).

IMO sixth sense and superior reflexes would stack according to the rules as they are

Sixth sense does not provide the wording that defensive training does ie you gain defensive x

A/ So if you had Jedi temple armor and were under cover you have a base defense of 2 , the higher of the 2 here

B/ If you had dual vibroswords (each giving the weapon quality defensive 1, along with 3 ranks of defensive training you then have defensive 3, the highest of these. (Note that in this case dual wielding the swords only gives you defensive 1 not 2)

C/ Until the wording of superior reflexes changes this would allow you to add another 1 to your melee defense as this is not worded that you gain defense 1 (allowing it to stand with A. ) nor does it say it gives you defensive 1 (allowing it to stack with B )

So if you had all 3 you would have a base defense of 2, +3 melee defense from defensive training, and an additional 1 from superior reflexes for a total of 6 mêlée defense as all 3 are from different sources. If you tried to munchkin it and add items with the weapon quality defensive then to be worthwhile it would need to be defensive 4 for the weapon to better your own defensive ability with handling weapons. FFg tend to not make a new talent when that can reuse an old one and they have been clear that different sources of the same thing don't stack, unless otherwise specified. Its something akin to force rating you have gain FR 1 is not the same as add +1 to your force rating

So here's a thought I had? What about having Boost dice and Setback dice literally cancel each other out?

If you have some number of effects which give you 2 boost dice... and some other effects which give you 2 setback dice... instead of rolling 2 each along with the rest of the whole dice pool, just have them cancel each other out and roll the pool without them.

Or if you had 2 boost and 3 setback, then your end pool only has 1 setback in it.

This way you can still include all the potential modifiers, but the end pool isn't a fat handful of dice.

Ive got a marksman who wolls 5 voost on a single aim in the game I GM the pools are manageable

So here's a thought I had? What about having Boost dice and Setback dice literally cancel each other out?

If you have some number of effects which give you 2 boost dice... and some other effects which give you 2 setback dice... instead of rolling 2 each along with the rest of the whole dice pool, just have them cancel each other out and roll the pool without them.

Or if you had 2 boost and 3 setback, then your end pool only has 1 setback in it.

This way you can still include all the potential modifiers, but the end pool isn't a fat handful of dice.

I don't really like the canceling dice.

Part of the reason for this is that there isn't a 1:1 tracking of symbols across the dice. Boost dice and Setback dice don't have the same number of success vs. fail and advantage vs. threat. The boost die has twice as many advantage as the setback die has threat, for instance. The symbols on the ability vs. difficulty die also don't correspond 1:1 - the difficulty die has fewer fails than the ability die has successes, but has more threat than the ability die has advantage. Even the proficiency die vs. challenge die are not 1:1 with regards to anything (with the exception of triumph vs. despair).

Yes its skewed such that an equal green vs purple check is geared towards success with threat.

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.

This is why I never take cover. Battle armor means I'm as difficult to hit in cover as in the open, so might as well charge the front lines.

This is why I never take cover. Battle armor means I'm as difficult to hit in cover as in the open, so might as well charge the front lines.

There's something to this - maybe that feeling of invincibility is one of the true intentions.

Or maybe they're just trying to replicate the feel of all those battles in The Clone Wars where everyone just stands in the open shooting at each other.

Or maybe they're just trying to replicate the feel of all those battles in The Clone Wars where everyone just stands in the open shooting at each other.

Stupidity isn't a trait worth emulating.

Or maybe they're just trying to replicate the feel of all those battles in The Clone Wars where everyone just stands in the open shooting at each other.

Stupidity isn't a trait worth emulating.

Stupidity is part of the fantasy setting.

I think at some point FFG will come out with some kind of hierarchy where by you go through and identify each source of a characters Defence (Cover, Armour, Weapons, Talents). Second step is to add to those sources with only the applicable Defence Modifiers (eg; a crystal doesn't add to the defence of your armour) and then you end up with multiple defence numbers from various sources. Then the last step is a list of which sources can be added together to get to your final defence totals (Weapon and Weapon No, Armour and Weapon Yes?)