Hmm, lots of stealth, really good at avoiding getting shot, good with throwing weapons, ability to fall from great heights and terrify enemies... Sentry is Batman.

The entire Sentinel career is Batman. Pretty much every specialization is an aspect of Batman.

I think its great there are more "Mechanical" ways to gain Conflict. There are too many players avoiding Conflict where this system is supposed to offer reasons for being Dark. Its so awesome that a PC can be doing bad things for good reasons, or good for bad... or bad for bad! I think many players, by refusing to walk the line, really miss out on some of the awesome potential this system offers.

I've noticed lots of people try to avoid it. We see it in a lot of post on the forum. I attribute to the whole artificial lightsider that I'd see people playing in previous Star Wars where they only did stuff that was lightside no matter what, even if it made sense to be a little bit dark in this one instance. Makes no sense to me.

I think its great there are more "Mechanical" ways to gain Conflict. There are too many players avoiding Conflict where this system is supposed to offer reasons for being Dark. Its so awesome that a PC can be doing bad things for good reasons, or good for bad... or bad for bad! I think many players, by refusing to walk the line, really miss out on some of the awesome potential this system offers.

I personally think that many people overlook the conflict cost od using Dark Side pips. While the cost is listed as being 1 per pip, this is if you are using the power for thw "Greater Good", so if you are using it for selfish or nefarious reasons the you are supposed to add up to an additional 1-5 points per pip. So using a power to save yourself could cost 2 or 3 points per pip, and using it to attack unprovoked could cost you 6 per pip. So as an example using move for an attack unprovoked and rolling 2 Dark Side pips could cost as much as 12 points conflict, not counting the actual act itself. So in this situation if you killed a stormtrooper with move as a first resort would be an immediate 22 conflict.

I do not think that you are correct.

I think its great there are more "Mechanical" ways to gain Conflict. There are too many players avoiding Conflict where this system is supposed to offer reasons for being Dark. Its so awesome that a PC can be doing bad things for good reasons, or good for bad... or bad for bad! I think many players, by refusing to walk the line, really miss out on some of the awesome potential this system offers.

I personally think that many people overlook the conflict cost od using Dark Side pips. While the cost is listed as being 1 per pip, this is if you are using the power for thw "Greater Good", so if you are using it for selfish or nefarious reasons the you are supposed to add up to an additional 1-5 points per pip. So using a power to save yourself could cost 2 or 3 points per pip, and using it to attack unprovoked could cost you 6 per pip. So as an example using move for an attack unprovoked and rolling 2 Dark Side pips could cost as much as 12 points conflict, not counting the actual act itself. So in this situation if you killed a stormtrooper with move as a first resort would be an immediate 22 conflict.

I do not think that you are correct.

"Obviously evil or overly selfish acts combined with the main transgression can add from 1 to 5 additional Conflict points. Gray areas, such as using a dark side pip for a selfish but not a truly evil action, recieves a minimum +1 conflict, but possibly 2 to. 5 more conflict. The GM's determination and ruling is final.

You could argue that this means it is not per pip, but if that were correct it should have been worded pips , to cover both singular and plural eventualities, however these are definitely in addition to the original 1 point per pip.

As I said, often overlooked.

You know what we really need? A Kung Fu Master.

Well, aren't they called "Jedi" here?

You know what we really need? A Kung Fu Master.

Well, aren't they called "Jedi" here?

Well, a Teräs Käsi related spec would work rather nicely, I think. We've got the Iron Fists talisman in the core book, which allows you to go hand to hand with a dude with a saber.

"Proper" Teräs Käsi didn't require you to be force sensitive, but throwing it in an F&D book is fine, because some Jedi were supposed to have adopted and improved it. It has 'close your mind' techniques (probably Sleight of Mind?) and plenty of defensive tricks (dodge and defensive stance?) plus a whole slew of named signature moves you could translate into talents after the fashion of saber swarm, sarlaac sweep, hawk bat stoop and so on.

I think its great there are more "Mechanical" ways to gain Conflict. There are too many players avoiding Conflict where this system is supposed to offer reasons for being Dark. Its so awesome that a PC can be doing bad things for good reasons, or good for bad... or bad for bad! I think many players, by refusing to walk the line, really miss out on some of the awesome potential this system offers.

I've noticed lots of people try to avoid it. We see it in a lot of post on the forum. I attribute to the whole artificial lightsider that I'd see people playing in previous Star Wars where they only did stuff that was lightside no matter what, even if it made sense to be a little bit dark in this one instance. Makes no sense to me.

I wonder if part of the aversion to Conflict is from veteran Star Wars RPG players who are used to "dark side points = bad!", especially the WEG veterans. I still run into this issue myself, both as GM and as a player, generally trying to avoid Conflict even if the Conflict-worthy action would be the most sensible course of action, likely ingrained from several years of playing Jedi in WEG where it could be very easy to lose your character if you acted dark enough.

I think a fair number of folks play Star Wars RPGs to be heroic characters, and the various Star Wars media have painted being heroic as being on the light side of the Force, particularly with Jedi and some portions of the EU painting Luke as a near messiah-like figure, thus reinforcing that being a heroic Jedi (or any Force user) meant being avoiding using the dark side or doing questionable things. Prior to the prequels, the only folks we saw doing shady things were muggles like Han and Lando, and it's a common notion that the Jedi Order of the prequels were themselves corrupted (to what degree is up for debate), especially by the end of the Clone Wars.

Yes, FFG has made it so that playing a dark side is a viable option of the player wants to go that route, but mechanically the benefits (able to freely use the more commonly occurring dark side pips, increased wound threshold) don't fully balance out the downsides (reduced strain threshold, one less light side destiny point at each session's start), where by contrast being a Light Side Paragon is nothing but positives (extra light side destiny point, increased strain threshold). So in that light, a fair number of players are going to angle for being a LS Paragon simply because it's got the better pluses, and with that mindset they become a lot more adverse to things that generate Conflict.

I think a fair number of folks play Star Wars RPGs to be heroic characters, and the various Star Wars media have painted being heroic as being on the light side of the Force, particularly with Jedi and some portions of the EU painting Luke as a near messiah-like figure, thus reinforcing that being a heroic Jedi (or any Force user) meant being avoiding using the dark side or doing questionable things. Prior to the prequels, the only folks we saw doing shady things were muggles like Han and Lando, and it's a common notion that the Jedi Order of the prequels were themselves corrupted (to what degree is up for debate), especially by the end of the Clone Wars.

That's one thing I like from Knights of the old republic, and that era generally; a sense that light side/dark side is serenity/passion rather than specifically good/evil. Yes, it's easier to go off the rails on dark side power because misapplied passion is a destructive thing, but without "caring" enough you essentially end up either arrogant, apathetic, or supercillious - all the things the jedi order gets accused of being by outsiders.

Possibly it's a result of reading the Thomas Covenant books that I like that, because you see much the same concept in there.

I have something that would be a dev type question. The Palm Stunner says it uses a Skulduggery vs Resilience check to determine if it hits. But then it says each success of the stealth check raises the damage dealt by 1.

When I pointed it out to a friend of mine asking which he thought it was, he said "Yes". Meaning why not both? I didn't disagree with him but I'd like an official ruling.

Also, how neat is it that we have a sneaky back stab type weapon at long last?

I have an opposite situation: most of my force sensitive PC's don't want to be lightside force users. One or two specifically want to be dark, another 2 want to skirt the edge of light/dark and one actually does want to be a lightside force user but so far all have made mostly darkside decisions.

My players tend to lean towards selfish, aggressive acts and attempt to justify them to me later on, which makes me want to issue out conflict for those actions all the more so.

I personally find the rule of warning players about the conflict they would take for an action is lame, given that it's pretty easy to tell what would issue them conflict if they start acting selfish. Warning them tends to influence their decisions and there was no outside thing warning the characters in the movies. The other characters would warn each other but the force didn't just go "hey, you're going to gain conflict here Anakin".

That said, I understand it's in place because the players generally don't have as much of a grasp of the game rules and its concepts as the GM does. So because of that, I warn the players about conflict. For now. After a while I think I really shouldn't, they should eventually learn what will earn them conflict by experiencing it.

I have an opposite situation: most of my force sensitive PC's don't want to be lightside force users. One or two specifically want to be dark, another 2 want to skirt the edge of light/dark and one actually does want to be a lightside force user but so far all have made mostly darkside decisions.

My players tend to lean towards selfish, aggressive acts and attempt to justify them to me later on, which makes me want to issue out conflict for those actions all the more so.

I personally find the rule of warning players about the conflict they would take for an action is lame, given that it's pretty easy to tell what would issue them conflict if they start acting selfish. Warning them tends to influence their decisions and there was no outside thing warning the characters in the movies. The other characters would warn each other but the force didn't just go "hey, you're going to gain conflict here Anakin".

That said, I understand it's in place because the players generally don't have as much of a grasp of the game rules and its concepts as the GM does. So because of that, I warn the players about conflict. For now. After a while I think I really shouldn't, they should eventually learn what will earn them conflict by experiencing it.

I have something that would be a dev type question. The Palm Stunner says it uses a Skulduggery vs Resilience check to determine if it hits. But then it says each success of the stealth check raises the damage dealt by 1.

When I pointed it out to a friend of mine asking which he thought it was, he said "Yes". Meaning why not both? I didn't disagree with him but I'd like an official ruling.

Also, how neat is it that we have a sneaky back stab type weapon at long last?

I'd go with Skulduggery on both counts.

I have an opposite situation: most of my force sensitive PC's don't want to be lightside force users. One or two specifically want to be dark, another 2 want to skirt the edge of light/dark and one actually does want to be a lightside force user but so far all have made mostly darkside decisions.

My players tend to lean towards selfish, aggressive acts and attempt to justify them to me later on, which makes me want to issue out conflict for those actions all the more so.

I personally find the rule of warning players about the conflict they would take for an action is lame, given that it's pretty easy to tell what would issue them conflict if they start acting selfish. Warning them tends to influence their decisions and there was no outside thing warning the characters in the movies. The other characters would warn each other but the force didn't just go "hey, you're going to gain conflict here Anakin".

That said, I understand it's in place because the players generally don't have as much of a grasp of the game rules and its concepts as the GM does. So because of that, I warn the players about conflict. For now. After a while I think I really shouldn't, they should eventually learn what will earn them conflict by experiencing it.

You're looking at the warning from the wrong side. The warning is entirely an OOC thing; you're not the Force warning Anakin, you're George telling Hayden so they can work together to make the scene.

Personally, I just dispense with the warning, and only inform the players after the fact that what they did earned them Conflict. The folks I game with are mature (relatively speaking) adults with a pretty solid concept of right and wrong and the understanding that the Force operates on a fairly stark white and black morality; there might be some wiggle room, but not a whole lot and pretty much anything that would generate 5 or more points of Conflict is pretty cut-and-dry. But I also make sure they are clear on this before the campaign starts, so that anyone who balks at that idea and finds it a deal breaker can either choose to play a non-F/S character, or simply not play at all.

I have an opposite situation: most of my force sensitive PC's don't want to be lightside force users. One or two specifically want to be dark, another 2 want to skirt the edge of light/dark and one actually does want to be a lightside force user but so far all have made mostly darkside decisions.

My players tend to lean towards selfish, aggressive acts and attempt to justify them to me later on, which makes me want to issue out conflict for those actions all the more so.

I personally find the rule of warning players about the conflict they would take for an action is lame, given that it's pretty easy to tell what would issue them conflict if they start acting selfish. Warning them tends to influence their decisions and there was no outside thing warning the characters in the movies. The other characters would warn each other but the force didn't just go "hey, you're going to gain conflict here Anakin".

That said, I understand it's in place because the players generally don't have as much of a grasp of the game rules and its concepts as the GM does. So because of that, I warn the players about conflict. For now. After a while I think I really shouldn't, they should eventually learn what will earn them conflict by experiencing it.

You're looking at the warning from the wrong side. The warning is entirely an OOC thing; you're not the Force warning Anakin, you're George telling Hayden so they can work together to make the scene.

As a Gm im all for giving the warning about conflict but at least you dont have to specify the amount of conflict. As a player Im happy enough to leave it to my GM, as for conflict, personally I say bring it on, Im playing a warden who strives to be good, but sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and a lot of bad had been done for the Greater Good. Take Marvels Civil War as an example as there is only lots of grey areas.

/was all excited for this book

/eagerly checked next week's UK releases for price

. . . not listed.

/sigh

/settles in as the Vigil continues

So the question is - why has nobody mentioned yet the chapter section on Podracing? What a neat surprise!

So the question is - why has nobody mentioned yet the chapter section on Podracing? What a neat surprise!

Please explain! Is it an expansion of Chases?

The podracing section was the one part I flipped past in disgust. I liked Jar-Jar more than podracing.

So the question is - why has nobody mentioned yet the chapter section on Podracing? What a neat surprise!

Yeah, actually, now that I've sat back and looked it over, there aren't rules for pod racing . There is a section describing its history, rules for premade podracers, customizing them, and building your own*, but no specific rules for the racing aspect.

*And before anyone asks, its not a crafting section for podracers. It just has the stats for the cockpit, and attachments, including engines, cables, and other attachments.

I saw the picture of the Sentry Talent Tree, but have the other two specializations been posted yet? I'm just curious to see what they're like.

I saw the picture of the Sentry Talent Tree, but have the other two specializations been posted yet? I'm just curious to see what they're like.

I don't think a picture has been posted but earlier in the thread a list of the talents and the skills have already been posted. So you can see what it's all about without the picture.

I saw the picture of the Sentry Talent Tree, but have the other two specializations been posted yet? I'm just curious to see what they're like.

<genie voice>2 of your 3 wishes have been granted</genie voice>

I have an opposite situation: most of my force sensitive PC's don't want to be lightside force users. One or two specifically want to be dark, another 2 want to skirt the edge of light/dark and one actually does want to be a lightside force user but so far all have made mostly darkside decisions.

My players tend to lean towards selfish, aggressive acts and attempt to justify them to me later on, which makes me want to issue out conflict for those actions all the more so.

I personally find the rule of warning players about the conflict they would take for an action is lame, given that it's pretty easy to tell what would issue them conflict if they start acting selfish. Warning them tends to influence their decisions and there was no outside thing warning the characters in the movies. The other characters would warn each other but the force didn't just go "hey, you're going to gain conflict here Anakin".

That said, I understand it's in place because the players generally don't have as much of a grasp of the game rules and its concepts as the GM does. So because of that, I warn the players about conflict. For now. After a while I think I really shouldn't, they should eventually learn what will earn them conflict by experiencing it.

You're looking at the warning from the wrong side. The warning is entirely an OOC thing; you're not the Force warning Anakin, you're George telling Hayden so they can work together to make the scene.

I was looking at is as an out of character thing. The player will change their mind if they are warned in the moment that they will get conflict, as they will take that warning from me as "this is a really bad idea". If they are informed ahead of time what will earn them conflict, I shouldn't have to hold their hand when it comes to moral decisions unless it's a very tricky between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place kind of situation where both options are bad but one is worse.

At least, that's how I look at it. My own thoughts aside, I prefer to stick with the rules of the game as much as I can, so I'll continue giving them that warning.

Does the full description of Better Luck Next Time give guidance on what a "major misfortune" is?

Does the full description of Better Luck Next Time give guidance on what a "major misfortune" is?

It says, at minimum, it should be a major collision, but it can be other things, such as forcing them to take a dead-end turn, get attacked by angry fans, etc. It just depends on what the GM approves.

Nice, so it's something "race ending" or at least a big delay. Very cool move.