I'm playing a Gunslinger and I'd like to be able to shoot weapons out of a bad guy's hand. Under the aim rule it says I can take a maneuver to, in essence, aim at a specific spot on the enemy (including weapons to disarm them) by accepting setback dice (there's a called shot talent on the Gunslinger tree to help with this). There's no further discussion on that in the book, though.

So, any RAW on how this is handled? I understand that you can disarm an opponent if you get 3 advantage. I don't see why I'd have to shoot at their weapon to do that, though (why take the setback dice that would just make it more difficult to do what you are trying to do?).

I'm playing a Gunslinger and I'd like to be able to shoot weapons out of a bad guy's hand. Under the aim rule it says I can take a maneuver to, in essence, aim at a specific spot on the enemy (including weapons to disarm them) by accepting setback dice (there's a called shot talent on the Gunslinger tree to help with this). There's no further discussion on that in the book, though.

So, any RAW on how this is handled? I understand that you can disarm an opponent if you get 3 advantage. I don't see why I'd have to shoot at their weapon to do that, though (why take the setback dice that would just make it more difficult to do what you are trying to do?).

If you aim than you can do it with a single success and potentially deactivate/cripple the weapon/subsystem/body part for the whole encounter as well. Same goes for aiming for legs to cripple them, etc … . Those hits do not count as full criticals, but orient themselves based on the criticals which would apply and last most likely for the whole encounter still (or until someone has time to roll successful on mechanic, medicine). I am passing this on the offhand note, which I read in some source book or developer comment that we should orientate us for the effect for the encounter on the crit tables.

It's intentionally vague I guess, so it is up to group and gm to decide on the details, we downright destroy weapons when they take damage 15 points (and 6 points pierce). Most likely our GM will follow this line down to 11 or 10 damage. Let me do a quick search, maybe I have a more solid source than my wonky memory.

edit:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/108101-ffg-developer-answered-questions/page-6#entry1689855

This ironically speaks against my idea, though the "Spending advantages and triumphs in combat" table speaks of the critical injury table as a good resource for looking up effects and at least we handle he aiming onto weapons, legs, arms, etc based that three advantages options. And as mentioned, those are not real crits, but temporary restrictions for the encounter. We count of like this as a way to neutralize threats / hinder our enemies

I'm playing a Gunslinger and I'd like to be able to shoot weapons out of a bad guy's hand. Under the aim rule it says I can take a maneuver to, in essence, aim at a specific spot on the enemy (including weapons to disarm them) by accepting setback dice (there's a called shot talent on the Gunslinger tree to help with this). There's no further discussion on that in the book, though.

So, any RAW on how this is handled? I understand that you can disarm an opponent if you get 3 advantage. I don't see why I'd have to shoot at their weapon to do that, though (why take the setback dice that would just make it more difficult to do what you are trying to do?).

Dunno about RAW exactly, but I'd treat a successful combat check after spending a maneuver to Aim in this instance as generally being the same as if the PC had spent 3 advantage to disarm the target, in that the target no longer has a weapon in hand and has to spend a maneuver to either pick it up off the ground or draw a new one.

It's perhaps a tad on the wonky side to be sure, but if you're trying to avoid injuring the target for any number of reasons, it's an option. And like you said, with being a Gunslinger you've got a talent that dispenses with the setback dice. Of course, the GM could very easily enable you to spend any extra advantage from your check to do other things, such as give the target a setback die on their next check (most people would be pretty startled at having a weapon shot out of their hand) or maybe have the target take several large steps back (force them to move one range band away) or to have them fall on their keister.

But let's face it, part of the Gunslinger spec is making cool shots, and countless westerns (a notable influence on Star Wars) have shown that being able to shoot an enemy's weapon out of their hand without hurting them is pretty darn cool and makes the shooter come across as very skilled and thus very dangerous to cross.

After you disarmed two targets in one round with a smile on your face and a (free) cool or coercion check, it might be time for the fear check on the opposition. Apparently no one told them that they stand no chance against XY. Naturally it depends on the rest of the situation, but it for sure can **** demoralizing if PCs just toy with NPC adversaries.

I wouldn't call for a fear check in that situation any more than I would for having x % DMG done to you in any one particular hit,or having a nasty critical hit occur, having a hole put somewhere on your body is a bit more terrifying, and these don't call for fear checks.

In fact fear checks are normally used sparingly in game (I'd make an exception for a horror based scenario)

That being said it would be demoralising and the GM should role play it as such, Fear checks are what occur when a TERRIFYING situation occurs that fill you with dread, this in itself can result in demorailsation also, but they are not similar causes.

I refer to AoR p. 315 or EotE p. 299 Table 9-1

"Somewhat overmatched" can already be an easy check, that grim black armored warrior with the red lightsaber might be already daunting check. The gunslinger disarms two lowly goons without backup while looking bored? Reasonable that he will not aim for the blaster the second time … sounds to me like an average check. Switch the goons for competent bounty hunters and it sounds more like an invitation to dance. Are the goons used to facing superior enemies already? Forget about the check, but consider them running or surrendering anyway, because someone already told them their odds.

If someone faces really terrifying things we are already in for daunting or formidable checks.

Fair enough. However my point still strands if that's the case then you would have to do the same for any reasonably high DMG shot or critical.

I confess I'm not really a fan of this kind of thing as a general ability. It should be reserved for critical story moments. Besides, if the PC can do it, then NPCs can do it, and then it becomes an arms race where everybody is disarming each other, which can be silly/amusing for a short time before it quickly gets extremely boring.

A couple sessions ago the PCs faced an Inquisitor who couldn't do anything right. They rolled several advantages and decided to disable his lightsaber temporarily...fair enough, it's a legitimate option. However, next round they got several advantages again and chose to do the same thing, which I let slide, but when they tried to do it a third time I said no...it's far too easy even for a low-XP character to get 3A, and it takes all gravitas out of what is supposed to be a tense moment.

Fair enough. However my point still strands if that's the case then you would have to do the same for any reasonably high DMG shot or critical.

Using for example planetary scale weapons seems a legit reason. AT-AT assault against infantry units is even mentioned as source to create a truly terrifying battlefield. Keep here btw in mind that you get used to stuff. RAW stats that those checks are usually happen when you happen to run the first time into it. Let the rookies puke until their stomach is empty from gruesome criticals which create exploding heads or spilled guts … they get used to it over time, and veterans will just shrug this kind of experience off and not even role dice anymore …

@whafrog: The inquisitor himself should have realized by now that it is time to give up. He would have eaten 3 full hits with enough advantages for 1 to 3 criticals each. The PCs instead decided to capture him or at least try it. They could instead shot him in both kneecaps and bring him literally to his knees. (potentially even with arrows, scnr)

And actually it is quite hard to gain 3 advantages once the adversary has a a good amount ranks in adversary and not very effective either as this literally forces the inquisitor just to spend a maneuver to keep his weapon. So I am not really sure if the disarming was taking out the tension or simply the fact that your group could have killed that inquisitor easily either way. Keep in mind disarming does not damage, shooting someone in the face is often deadly. Furthermore losing once weapon seems to be a super common trope in star wars and as well the main jedi use for a lightsaber.

First Round, instead of disarming the inquisitor ezra literally steals one of his lightsabers with a force move action.

Second Round, knockdown against Kanan and Ezra with a force push,

Third Round, Ezra gets disarmed as well and thrown down to a platform below. (Triumph + 3 advantages for that saber throw attack)

Round Four, the Inquisitor gets disarmed and his lightsaber destroyed in a few to blow up the whole place, cheers for double triumph I guess.

It is in the descriptions of the combat, it is in the narrative to make such scenes good, disarming or well disARMing are the usually results of star wars lightsaber combat.

@whafrog: The inquisitor himself should have realized by now that it is time to give up. He would have eaten 3 full hits with enough advantages for 1 to 3 criticals each.

Before you pass judgement, you should go read the writeup that whafrog has posted elsewhere regarding this particular combat.

If Darth Vader wakes up one day with the worst Migraine headache that the Galaxy has ever seen, and he proceeds to have the crappiest day that has ever happened in the history of the Galaxy, it is actually possible that he could be defeated by a completely untrained Luke Skywalker.

Very highly improbable, but possible. Like, less likely than winning the Powerball Lottery more than once, but still actually possible.

@whafrog: The inquisitor himself should have realized by now that it is time to give up. He would have eaten 3 full hits with enough advantages for 1 to 3 criticals each.

Before you pass judgement, you should go read the writeup that whafrog has posted elsewhere regarding this particular combat.

If Darth Vader wakes up one day with the worst Migraine headache that the Galaxy has ever seen, and he proceeds to have the crappiest day that has ever happened in the history of the Galaxy, it is actually possible that he could be defeated by a completely untrained Luke Skywalker.

Very highly improbable, but possible. Like, less likely than winning the Powerball Lottery more than once, but still actually possible.

Very true, one of my groups has slain the balrog of moria per accident (and a 600+ role on a d100), the thing is, if Darth Vader gets the second worst beating of his life since that night on mustafar then he should stay down this time instead of trying to do this **** jump again. Retreat should be valid option for npcs, we have countless examples for this in the canon as well. And my point that odds of getting 3 easy advantages are still low with an appropriated rank in adversary does still stand.

Though the complete story of the battle sounds like fun, have to search for that later and I did not wanted to imply that something was done wrong in the encounter, just that ridiculous amounts of lost weapons are a common star wars trope and turns are long enough to actually make those scene cool despite that some combatants losing their life ("This lightsaber is your life") 3 times in 5 rounds. Besides, deadly combat systems are harder to orchestrate long drawn "boss" battles, and this system can literally vaporize anyone within one turn if the stars align right, so a lot of tension has to come out of the setup and situation and not just the dice rolls.

edit:

And one last thing: I know you were joking, but I shall not judge any fellow player. I may or may not like a particular style, but the only people who can judge a GM are his players and the only measurement they shall us is the amount of fun they have with her. I can make comments from my perspective and experience and that's it. Just like everyone else.

My only point was that things like disarm become overpowered. You can tell because it becomes the go-to thing the players try to do. By the third time, I was more disappointed in the lack of imagination than anything else, but that speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the tactic and suggests a broken mechanic. That kind of thing should be more in the realm of a Signature Ability. If as a GM I have to give all the Rivals and Nemesis some kind of anti-disarm talent just to stop an overuse of a tactic, then it's broken. Never mind that I shouldn't have to explain why, story-wise, it's a big yawn-fest to see players try to do the same thing over and over again.

The "lost lightsaber" was only a trope in E2, and the symbolism behind it (based on an interview with Lucas) was that the Jedi were also losing their way. But I have no interest in repeating that trope, especially when it's out of context. Once, or maybe twice, in an encounter can be amusing, after that it's just goofy.

It cost an action to disarm someone either via aim or a regular attack with enough advantages. It costs a single maneuver to pick up that weapon again, which I personally would sometimes describe as just bringing the weapon out of harms way (and slightly ignoring initiative order),

Example giving wth a video not from episode 2, which should counter the yawn fest and as well the point about being broken. And lasty there is still the issue that instead of disarming I usually can just crit the guy and do significant damage. And crits stack up relatively fast and making absolute deadly crits very likely.

Take your inquisitor example, instead of disarming him three times and forcing him to spend a maneuver to pick up his weapon, apply each time a critical hit and damage, potentially multiple activations each shot to apply extra +10s on the role and +20 on top for the 3rd one the adversary has already taken 2 before. Is compared to that the disarming even a good choice, and I don't mean the disarm from the crit table which a 'decent' lightsaber would do on the third strike with just a 51 rolled. Though giving the nemesis a squad of minions to take the hits for him should work just fine against both tactics.

And now I really want to read up on that fight, but I can't find it. Anyone got a link for me?

My only point was that things like disarm become overpowered. You can tell because it becomes the go-to thing the players try to do. By the third time, I was more disappointed in the lack of imagination than anything else, but that speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the tactic and suggests a broken mechanic. That kind of thing should be more in the realm of a Signature Ability. If as a GM I have to give all the Rivals and Nemesis some kind of anti-disarm talent just to stop an overuse of a tactic, then it's broken. Never mind that I shouldn't have to explain why, story-wise, it's a big yawn-fest to see players try to do the same thing over and over again.

The "lost lightsaber" was only a trope in E2, and the symbolism behind it (based on an interview with Lucas) was that the Jedi were also losing their way. But I have no interest in repeating that trope, especially when it's out of context. Once, or maybe twice, in an encounter can be amusing, after that it's just goofy.

I don't think an attack that comes with an automatic set of what...3 setback dice is a "go to" attack for anyone other than those people who specialize in that kind of thing, like a Gunslinger. So I doubt doing trick shots at limbs is going to become the new standard attack action, when you could more easily just shoot them in the chest

But for the person who is specialized in that kind of thing, then sure, why not? I mean, it's exactly the kind of thing they are spending their XP to be able to do. Just like a pilot being crazy good at piloting compared to other people.

Besides, doesn't the rulebook indicate that the results of shooting a limb is basically left up to the GM as to what happens? Seems reasonable to me to have a "you shoot the gun away" kind of thing. I would probably say that if any significant amount of threat, or despair is rolled, you could potentially injure the person too, seriously maiming them, or maybe the gun misfires as it clatters to the floor, shooting a bystander or something. Making some level of threat to the action.

Disarming a foe that weapon that is defensive or allows the user to reflect can be a wise move.

that Inquisitor is SO coming back...

As for shooting/smashing a weapon out of someone's hand, as far as I know any defensive traits the target would have against a normal attack would still be applicable.

So if trying to blast that super-heavy pistol out of the hand of a BBEG with Adversary 3 and Ranged Defense 2 while they're standing at medium range and you don't have the Call 'Em talent, then you're looking at a difficulty of 2 red, 1 purple, and 4 setback dice if you only spend one maneuver to Aim (since per Aim, if you target a specific part of the target, then you loose the boost die and instead add two setback dice). And if it's a weapon that requires two hands to hold, as a GM I'd probably add another setback die, to say nothing of upgrading the difficulty again via a Destiny Point (especially if there's not a whole lot of light side points in the pool).

Unless you've got a PC that's rolling 4 proficiency dice, that's a fairly daunting difficulty pool to face.

And in the case of major BBEGs, especially something like an Inquisitor, feel free to give them the Resist Disarm talent if you feel your PCs are going to try and cheese the hell out the disarm tactic.

And in the case of major BBEGs, especially something like an Inquisitor, feel free to give them the Resist Disarm talent if you feel your PCs are going to try and cheese the hell out the disarm tactic.

Or even worse, just draw another weapon and use attachments like magnetic weapon tether, give them the saber throw action or just commit a force die to move and keep the weapon coming back in the same way as the magnetic weapon tether would allow.

Or haver them switch to unleash try disarming that.

Or haver them switch to unleash try disarming that.

One reason why I like characters who are dangerous due to skills/powers, instead of gear. Gear can be taken away, but a skillful/Forceful character is just as deadly, even if their butt nekked.

Or haver them switch to unleash try disarming that.

Bind and Move are also handy, the former for action suppression ("Go ahead and take that action, along with some free wounds!") and the latter for a fun combo of battlefield control plus raw damage ("Go be annoying somewhere else after you go bouncing off the floor a few times!"). Through in some Magnitude Upgrades to really spread the love around

Or haver them switch to unleash try disarming that.

One reason why I like characters who are dangerous due to skills/powers, instead of gear. Gear can be taken away, but a skillful/Forceful character is just as deadly, even if their butt nekked.

Nothing wrong with equipment imho. Jango is disarming Kenobi on Kamino too, but gets disarmed then his jetpack gets blown up, but he still has his grappling gun to ensnare Kenobi who then stupidly rolls a Triumph AND despair and decides it would be a good idea to keep Fett from the platform. "Oh, not good" could have been from his player when he realized what GM George wil make out of that despair. Anyway, Fett burns in this encounter through equipment super fast, but he is full of that anyway and has enough tricks in his sleeve to best Kenobi after losing his Blaster, his Jetpack, running out of missiles and having to cut Kenobi loose from his rope. He still has his starship runs with it. Time to spend those credits from his last job for new equipment.

BTW. If you are really in the mood for getting drunk, watch all 9 star wars movies again (I count the the two clone wars ones here too) and drink each time someone gets disarmed a shot. Drink two shots or a beer each time someone gets literally disarmed two shots. (The imperator failing his influence check on Luke in RotJ, but having enough advantages to make him at least throw away his weapons counts for a shot.) You will end up so drunk. ;-)

Very true, one of my groups has slain the balrog of moria per accident (and a 600+ role on a d100),

And I scored over 70,000,000 on a game of battlezone at an arcade back in the mid-80s. To the best of my knowledge, the official current world record score on that game is less than 22,000,000. Unfortunately, I played that game until really late at night, and then the arcade shut off the power when they closed at night, which wiped all the high scores on all the games.

To this day, I am convinced that I was playing on a seriously broken copy of the game, which was adding a whole bunch of zeroes to the end of my score. But if I’d had a polaroid camera that night, I’d at least have some evidence of what the game claimed.

Flukes can happen anywhere, at any time.

the thing is, if Darth Vader gets the second worst beating of his life since that night on mustafar then he should stay down this time instead of trying to do this **** jump again. Retreat should be valid option for npcs, we have countless examples for this in the canon as well. And my point that odds of getting 3 easy advantages are still low with an appropriated rank in adversary does still stand.

In the example we’re talking about, I don’t believe that the Inquisitor in question was getting beaten that badly. What he was doing was completely and totally and utterly failing to do anything of combat significance to this opponents. He was doing it to himself by coming up all blanks on the positive dice and just about as bad as possible on the negative dice.

Darth Vader doesn’t give up just because he can’t hold onto his own lightsaber, and it flies out of his hands every time he goes to make a swing.

Any normal person, yeah — faced with that kind of galactic-scale bad luck, they’d probably give up and surrender. But Darth Vader certainly isn’t wired like normal people, and I don’t think that Inquisitors in general are, either.

Besides, deadly combat systems are harder to orchestrate long drawn "boss" battles, and this system can literally vaporize anyone within one turn if the stars align right, so a lot of tension has to come out of the setup and situation and not just the dice rolls.

This system generally makes it pretty hard to actually kill major characters. Sure, whole clouds of minions may die if you look at them wrong. Rivals might die at the drop of a hat. But PCs and BBEGs are made of much tougher stuff, and it’s pretty hard to actually kill them outright. Not impossible, but hard.

Even if your BBEG gets hit with Medium Laser Cannons fired from a YT-2400, depending on how good the roll was, he might be way over twice his Wound Threshold, but he could very easily still be alive — and maybe suffering the most minimal crit you can roll, like a Paper Cut.

OTOH, if your BBEG gets hit with Medium Laser Cannons fired from a YT-2400, maybe the GM decides to rule that he is instantly atomized and you can’t even find any remaining DNA samples to have proof-of-death.

I like the OP's idea, it's cinematic to a Mexican standoff, drawing your pistols and disarming your opponent at 20 paces is an awesome way to deal with a bunch of thugs without killing them.

Very true, one of my groups has slain the balrog of moria per accident (and a 600+ role on a d100),

And I scored over 70,000,000 on a game of battlezone at an arcade back in the mid-80s. To the best of my knowledge, the official current world record score on that game is less than 22,000,000. Unfortunately, I played that game until really late at night, and then the arcade shut off the power when they closed at night, which wiped all the high scores on all the games.

To this day, I am convinced that I was playing on a seriously broken copy of the game, which was adding a whole bunch of zeroes to the end of my score. But if I’d had a polaroid camera that night, I’d at least have some evidence of what the game claimed.

Flukes can happen anywhere, at any time.

the thing is, if Darth Vader gets the second worst beating of his life since that night on mustafar then he should stay down this time instead of trying to do this **** jump again. Retreat should be valid option for npcs, we have countless examples for this in the canon as well. And my point that odds of getting 3 easy advantages are still low with an appropriated rank in adversary does still stand.

In the example we’re talking about, I don’t believe that the Inquisitor in question was getting beaten that badly. What he was doing was completely and totally and utterly failing to do anything of combat significance to this opponents. He was doing it to himself by coming up all blanks on the positive dice and just about as bad as possible on the negative dice.

Darth Vader doesn’t give up just because he can’t hold onto his own lightsaber, and it flies out of his hands every time he goes to make a swing.

Any normal person, yeah — faced with that kind of galactic-scale bad luck, they’d probably give up and surrender. But Darth Vader certainly isn’t wired like normal people, and I don’t think that Inquisitors in general are, either.

Besides, deadly combat systems are harder to orchestrate long drawn "boss" battles, and this system can literally vaporize anyone within one turn if the stars align right, so a lot of tension has to come out of the setup and situation and not just the dice rolls.

This system generally makes it pretty hard to actually kill major characters. Sure, whole clouds of minions may die if you look at them wrong. Rivals might die at the drop of a hat. But PCs and BBEGs are made of much tougher stuff, and it’s pretty hard to actually kill them outright. Not impossible, but hard.

I once hit a guy for 80 or 90 damage with the guns of a shuttle. Our sniper dealt 30 damage out of his secondary blaster pistol (with his auto-fire rifle he is terrifying), our ataru striker can deal soon about 60 damage in a single attack (dual-wielding sabers with saber swarm talent). And then there are those 150+ crits, though I did really meant to definitely "kill", but more in the incapacitate range.But that just for clarification what I meant.

More importantly there. Saying Vader keeps fumbling is a super odd interpretation of dice rolls to me. It is not like Vader is dropping his Saber out of his own stupidity, he engages in close combat, either trades blows or made his opponent trying to evade his strikes and his opponent makes him drop his saber 3 times in a row. If you roll a despair and your opponent chooses to let you fall prone it is not a banana on the ground either which makes you fall, but most likely a kick or foot sweep of your opponent which sends you to the ground. Armor is not making you miss either, so why should a roll with threat make Vader an idiot instead of his opponent actually being a strong opponent and hard to deal with? And this holds especially true if ranks of dodge, sidestep, adversary and other talents which upgrade the difficulty come into play.

I mean, it would be for sure ridiculous if Vader keeps forgetting to hold his weapon and it gets sent flying because of that reason, but that sounds more like the narrative tone of spaceballs and not star wars.