I quoted exactly what you said in your previous post, where you say, and I quote again " It doesn't say anywhere how many range bands you can move someone. " You don't say how long in that statement, you just say it doesn't say how many range bands you can move someone. The rest of my point is "so what that it doesn't say how long?" Just make a determination and go with it.

You're completely ignoring the context of the quote though, it was a response to people arguing that because the power's description reads things get moved "slowly and deliberately" you have to commit force dice or take several turns to move objects from short to extreme range.

Not sure how you can call the interpretation "subjective" when the description of the power specifically says "slow and deliberate". Are you actually going to argue that if someone used the Move basic power to lift a data pad from short range to extreme range (presuming the appropriate number of range upgrades are activated) and the player in question argued they can do it one round because the rules are 'silent' on the matter you'd let them? Just because its not in the specific power section of the Move rules? At some point the Developers rely on people to use common sense, otherwise the core books would have to be twice as large and four times as expensive (editing costs money too).

Because it is subjective. A roleplaying game always exists on two levels, there is the narrative level, which is the story we tell, and there is the mechanical level, which is the specific numbers underlying it all. Every time the book gives us a narrative description of something without underpinning it with a mechanical structure it leaves the limits up to the subjective interpretation of the game master and players.

The mechanical level specifically exists to introduce an objective measurement of things. Saying "My character is super strong so he can lift this thing" and someone saying "That thing? Nuh uh, it's like uber heavy" is just two people's subjective interpretation of the situation. There is no right answer except giving someone the power to issue a ruling. Saying "My character has a strength of 5 so he can lift that thing" and someone saying "That object has an encumbrance of 11, so he will have to roll an athletics check" gives you an objective measure of what happens.

The text stating that objects are moved slowly and deliberately is simply a subjective statement because it doesn't draw on the mechanics of the game to define exactly what it means. For example a turn in the game can take several minutes, so how far could C-3PO have flown in 5 minutes? Half a mile? That's extreme range. You simply can't make any definitive statements about what happens until there is a mechanical limit set.

My suggested rebuild of Move solves this issue with half a dozen words added. I don't think the book has to be twice as long to cover problems like this.

Because that is determined by the number of Range upgrades you have purchased. I am baffled that you don't understand this. If you are moving them carefully, you are limited by the range at which you could actually MOVE something with Move. If you are trying to Move them to Extreme range, but you can only use Move out to Short, well, that's a pretty straightforward answer to whether or not you can Move them to that Extreme location in a slow and deliberate manner.

Uhh, you're not making any sense here. The whole argument was that someone said it would take several turns to move someone from short to extreme range, to which I replied that there is no rule that states that that's how long it takes. They said "Yes there is, the book says you move people slowly and deliberately" and I said "That's not a rule, that's just flavor text", and then you come back at me going "The rule is you can move things however far your range is" ... Which is exactly what I was saying in the first place!

but don't try and convince us for 5 pages worth of posts that you're right and we're wrong, because that's just not going to happen.

I'm not forcing anyone to respond to this thread. Reality is, I've posted a rework of the rules above and not a single person has responded to that, because they aren't here to be constructive, they are just here because "Hey look, a lot of people disagree with someone, I want to be part of that!"

You mean like how people have quoted the actual RAW to prove that people CAN be thrown, and you've ignored them, too? Just saying.

You mean like how people have quoted the actual RAW to prove that people CAN be thrown, and you've ignored them, too? Just saying.

I've never even made the claim that it's definitive that move cannot be used on people, I've put forth an interpretation of the rules that can be used to argue that it can't be used against people in a thread that I specifically labeled as [Rules Lawyering] to denote that it was a semantic nitpick, not a definitive truth.

I've then argued that I find that interpretation compelling because Move is extremely open to abuse and Bind covers just about every instance of people being moved in the movies and animated shows more faithfully.

I've then read everyone's arguments for why Move should be able to be used on people and proposed a rewrite of the rules which takes into account all of the points people have made, codifies the sidebars into mechanics, and explicitly states it can be used on people, while eliminating all the avenues for abusing that power.

Quite frankly, the only people who are ignoring what is actually being said are all the people who aren't able to even entertain the notion that someone might propose a hypothetical, listen to arguments and evolve their position accordingly. Read the rules proposal I posted if you actually care what my position is. Then realize that even that is a work in progress and is already being iterated on based on the feedback of people who actually bothered to respond to what I'm saying instead of just typing 500 word essays about how wrong and stupid I am.

You mean like how people have quoted the actual RAW to prove that people CAN be thrown, and you've ignored them, too? Just saying.

Quite frankly, the only people who are ignoring what is actually being said are all the people who aren't able to even entertain the notion that someone might propose a hypothetical, listen to arguments and evolve their position accordingly. Read the rules proposal I posted if you actually care what my position is. Then realize that even that is a work in progress and is already being iterated on based on the feedback of people who actually bothered to respond to what I'm saying instead of just typing 500 word essays about how wrong and stupid I am.

Never said you were stupid, just that we disagree regarding whether the rule should be different. For what it's worth though, I saved your proposed tree shortly after you uploaded it, so that I could get my group to try it out. We've never had issues with the RAW, but you never now whether they might take it back to their own tables having liked it more.

Aetrion, some here may be calling you stupid though I haven't see anyone actually say that and other's are saying you are wrong but neither of these are important at page six of this thread. What is is your obstinance in the face of correction. Where a reasonable person would accept their mistake and move on you have chosen to dig in. Is it stupid? Maybe not but it certainly intellectually dishonest.

For what it's worth though, I saved your proposed tree shortly after you uploaded it, so that I could get my group to try it out. We've never had issues with the RAW, but you never now whether they might take it back to their own tables having liked it more.

Beware that it's experimental and missing a lot of the more nuanced full page explanations of the new powers.

Duration for example should contain a rule that says "If the object being levitated is able to move under its own power it can use a maneuver to break free from the effect."

Where a reasonable person would accept their mistake and move on you have chosen to dig in. Is it stupid? Maybe not but it certainly intellectually dishonest.

So if your arguments fail to convince someone that person is not reasonable and intellectually dishonest? Well, that's certainly a convenient standard to judge people by if you want to never entertain the notion that there are multiple valid positions.

It's experimental and is missing the full page descriptions of various powers.

Duration for example should contain a rule that says "If the object being levitated is able to move under its own power it can use a maneuver to break free from the effect."

The rules of the game are there so the GM doesn't have to make everything up and the players have a reasonable expectation of what they are allowed to do. Especially in a narrative driven game like SWRP the clearer the rules are the more confidently the players get to tell their own stories without having to ask the GM for permission.

I want someone to be able to roll some dice and then tell the story of what their character did while the framework of the game's mechanics ensures that I never have to interrupt them to say "No, you can't do that". Good rules make good RP, because being confident about the limitations of powers, weapons, characters etc. allows players to tell stories without having to defer to the game master's judgement.

It also keeps the limitations constant. If I ran a game entirely without rules, and then wrote down every judgement I made so that if the same situation comes up again I remember the precedent, after a while guess what I'd end up with? The rules for a game!

This is true, but your problem from what I understand was never a story issue it was that Move was too good, which it isn't. Guns are the best way to deal damage especially auto fire. Force powers besides move can do more damage more reliably. Move you say is all powerful in its current unclear interpretation until you realize to lift Living things it is always an Opposed check, so the Beefier or the more stubborn the enemy the less likely you can lift them, meanwhile Unleash the best Force Power at Dealing Damage Is an average check always at any range with any target.

It is very ill defined and open to abuses like dropping enemies from ranges where the game specifies instant defeat as the result, or moving half a dozen people by 5 range bands in a single action. It's also set up so that if you have bought a few pretty cheap power upgrades picking up an AT-AT only costs one additional force pip, picking up 5 AT-ATs costs only one force pip more than that. You can literally pick up 5 AT-ATs and throw them with 4 force pips.

What exactly does an AT-AT roll to resist being picked up by the way?

Well, here is a rebuilt Move power tree that solves all of the issues IMO:

Primary changes:

The basic power now clearly states that it moves an object or creature by one range band, so "Slow and deliberate" isn't just flavor text, and it's not possible to drop someone from lethal heights in a single round unless they were already standing next to a deadly drop.

Strength now needs to be purchased for every silhouette increase, and can be purchased an unlimited number of times. It also now sets the maximum combined silhouette of all objects moved, so lifting two X-wings is now genuinely twice as demanding as lifting just one.

There is one less Magnitude box.

There is a duration power that lets you levitate an object in place, meaning if you need to move something more than one range band without setting it down you can take multiple turns to do so. (The full page text for this would mention that if you move out of range the effect ends)

Range upgrades now set the distance at which you can pick objects up, not the distance you can move them. They always only move one range band at a time.

Added Push as a standard Move based attack, as it is seen in the movies.

Modified Throw to clearly state that you can hurl both objects and opponents, but changed it so you can't throw an object at extreme range, you can only throw it at someone who is within short range of the object you are throwing. Also Throw would now always be an average Check, because lifting huge objects is now much more heavily limited by force points, so it doesn't need the extra limitation of a harder attack roll.

Added Catch control node which allows you to perform Move as an out of turn incidental to grab objects that are in the air, allowing you to use Move to defend yourself against grenades, thrown objects etc, or catch a falling ally and so on.

Rolled the two control upgrades that let you grab mounted objects and perform fine manipulations into a single mastery upgrade.

I think it's an interesting alternative. I would prefer the Base power to still be limited to Silhouette 0, since we see so many characters in the movies start with just that, pulling a Lightsaber toward them.

I assume there is also supposed to be a Silhouette limit on the Force Push action, probably it's intended to be the same as the Base power?

Force Catch is interesting, I think I would link it sideways to Mastery and not to Throw, it's an incredibly powerful ability even with the DP requirement. Otherwise make it a once per session thing.

I also like that you limited the total distance an object can be moved, although perhaps an upgrade to allow moving further would be worthwhile, increasing the maximum change from one range and to two.

What exactly does an AT-AT roll to resist being picked up by the way?

I would oppose it with the pilots Piloting Planetary skill or the Commanders Leadership, and probably any ranks of Adversary on top.

It is very ill defined and open to abuses like dropping enemies from ranges where the game specifies instant defeat as the result, or moving half a dozen people by 5 range bands in a single action. It's also set up so that if you have bought a few pretty cheap power upgrades picking up an AT-AT only costs one additional force pip, picking up 5 AT-ATs costs only one force pip more than that. You can literally pick up 5 AT-ATs and throw them with 4 force pips.

What exactly does an AT-AT roll to resist being picked up by the way?

Prodigious size alone makes it hard to lift, Sil 4 objects are 4 difficulty anything larger than sil 5 is actually impossible and needs the spending of a destiny point to attempt.

You mean like how people have quoted the actual RAW to prove that people CAN be thrown, and you've ignored them, too? Just saying.

I've never even made the claim that it's definitive that move cannot be used on people, I've put forth an interpretation of the rules that can be used to argue that it can't be used against people in a thread that I specifically labeled as [Rules Lawyering] to denote that it was a semantic nitpick, not a definitive truth.

So when the devs directly say that you can in fact use Move to move people, and it's even mentioned in the book, and you still try to say that you can't use it on people because of an incredibly nitpicky interpretation of the word "object", why is it still a debate? You aren't providing some "new look" on the power, as the actual printed text about the power, mentions on multiple occasions, that you can use it on people. This is supported by the movies on multiple occasions, and books, and tv shows, and basically everything canon in the Star Wars universe. You aren't presenting an "interpretation", because the rules very clearly support the use of it on people all over the place. So your interpretation is in fact, wrong.

What you are presenting is simply a house rule, which is fine. Like I said, house rule whatever you want and play your game to your group's delight. But this isn't some "Well the book doesn't SAY I can/can't specifically do this, therefore...etc etc". The book DOES in fact say you can use it on people, and even gives you mechanics on how to handle it when this situation happens. If you want to say "I don't like that, and want to house rule it differently." Sure, go ahead. But at least acknowledge that the position about the rules as written, that you are trying to support, is in fact, NOT supported by the RAW. And is in fact, directly opposite to the position you are proposing. It's not up for debate, the rules allow it, period. Because you did in fact propose that the rules don't say you can move people. It's in your very first post, in your proposed statements.

I think it's an interesting alternative. I would prefer the Base power to still be limited to Silhouette 0, since we see so many characters in the movies start with just that, pulling a Lightsaber toward them.

I assume there is also supposed to be a Silhouette limit on the Force Push action, probably it's intended to be the same as the Base power?

Force Catch is interesting, I think I would link it sideways to Mastery and not to Throw, it's an incredibly powerful ability even with the DP requirement. Otherwise make it a once per session thing.

I also like that you limited the total distance an object can be moved, although perhaps an upgrade to allow moving further would be worthwhile, increasing the maximum change from one range and to two.

I set the base power at 1 because I felt that having to buy strength upgrades for every single point of silhouette you're trying to move should only become really punishing when you're going for a huge object or a large number of greater than sil0 objects. You get a freebie in the base power so that it's a little more powerful at the low end, but a lot more expensive at the high end.

Force Push is subject to silhouette restrictions, starting at a base of 1, and then going up 1 with every strength upgrade, yes.

Hmm, I don't know if making Catch a bit more expensive to buy would make all that big of a difference. As far as I can tell masteries never chain into something else. I could up the XP cost of Push, Throw and Catch by 5 each if it's too cheap.

I'm not sure about allowing 2 range bands. the intent of the duration upgrade is that if you want to move something a long distance you just park it in the air and then move it some more next turn. Since you can't uncommit force dice till the end of your turn moving things over a long perious of time means having to make the subsequent rolls with 2 fewer force dice. Where would you place the range upgrade in the tree?

Prodigious size alone makes it hard to lift, Sil 4 objects are 4 difficulty anything larger than sil 5 is actually impossible and needs the spending of a destiny point to attempt.

The difficulty by silhouette only applies to the attack roll when throwing the object. Just lifting it doesn't require a skill check at all, only a power check.

Prodigious size alone makes it hard to lift , Sil 4 objects are 4 difficulty anything larger than sil 5 is actually impossible and needs the spending of a destiny point to attempt.

Lifting a Sil4 object is easy: you need 65XP, 2 pips, and no difficulty check.

Prodigious size alone makes it hard to lift , Sil 4 objects are 4 difficulty anything larger than sil 5 is actually impossible and needs the spending of a destiny point to attempt.

Lifting a Sil4 object is easy: you need 65XP, 2 pips, and no difficulty check.

I should have said throw. However your probably not going to kill a vehicle by dropping it.

Bind only allows you to move your target a single range band per round, that's because the control upgrade can only be activated once per action. So it's 4 turns to take them from Extreme to Engaged.

Move may be cheap to get into, but if you want to be doing anything big with it you have a lot to invest XP in. Your going to want at least Willpower 4, with 3-4 ranks of Discipline to start. Then you need a bare minimum of FR 2 to even reliably move a single target, it's more like a FR of 4 if your trying not to use too many Dark Side pips. Then you need to invest in the power itself, the entire tree is 150xp. Fully utilising Move is not a Beginner PC possibility.

On the contrary Strength 3, Agility 4, 15 XP in Gadgeteer and 1500 starting credits gets you a 6 Damage Jury Rigged Autofire Heavy Blaster Rifle

Actually, the Bind Control Upgrade in question. only allows you to movie the target one range band period . and it's either one range band closer or one range band farther from the user. In other words, you are either pushing him back one range band further away from you, or you are pulling him one range band closer to you. That's Force Push and Force Pull . It is Move which allows you to pick a target up and carry him/her/it around with you as you walk down a hallway.

It's probably similar in power to the Catch upgrade, so perhaps try squeezing it in there, otherwise make the Mastery a single column wide, below the Magnitude Upgrades, then have the extra upgrade below the 3 range upgrades.

Bind only allows you to move your target a single range band per round, that's because the control upgrade can only be activated once per action. So it's 4 turns to take them from Extreme to Engaged.

Move may be cheap to get into, but if you want to be doing anything big with it you have a lot to invest XP in. Your going to want at least Willpower 4, with 3-4 ranks of Discipline to start. Then you need a bare minimum of FR 2 to even reliably move a single target, it's more like a FR of 4 if your trying not to use too many Dark Side pips. Then you need to invest in the power itself, the entire tree is 150xp. Fully utilising Move is not a Beginner PC possibility.

On the contrary Strength 3, Agility 4, 15 XP in Gadgeteer and 1500 starting credits gets you a 6 Damage Jury Rigged Autofire Heavy Blaster Rifle

Actually, the Bind Control Upgrade in question. only allows you to movie the target one range band period . and it's either one range band closer or one range band farther from the user. In other words, you are either pushing him back one range band further away from you, or you are pulling him one range band closer to you. That's Force Push and Force Pull . It is Move which allows you to pick a target up and carry him/her/it around with you as you walk down a hallway.

Move does not allow you to Stagger, Immobilise or Disorient, so you can drag them down the hallway but they will be kicking and screaming the whole way.

I should have said throw. However your probably not going to kill a vehicle by dropping it.

Are there rules on how much fall damage a vehicle takes? I don't think I've seen anything.

Can you use the force to just flip them on their back like a turtle?

The reason why moving AT-ATs comes up as a way to defeat them is because knocking them over is shown as an effective means to destroy them in the movies.

It's probably similar in power to the Catch upgrade, so perhaps try squeezing it in there, otherwise make the Mastery a single column wide, below the Magnitude Upgrades, then have the extra upgrade below the 3 range upgrades.

Hmm, this doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it might be tough to fit the entire description of Mastery into a single column box.

It is very ill defined and open to abuses like dropping enemies from ranges where the game specifies instant defeat as the result, or moving half a dozen people by 5 range bands in a single action. It's also set up so that if you have bought a few pretty cheap power upgrades picking up an AT-AT only costs one additional force pip, picking up 5 AT-ATs costs only one force pip more than that. You can literally pick up 5 AT-ATs and throw them with 4 force pips.

What exactly does an AT-AT roll to resist being picked up by the way?

Prodigious size alone makes it hard to lift, Sil 4 objects are 4 difficulty anything larger than sil 5 is actually impossible and needs the spending of a destiny point to attempt.

Just because the Difficulty is > 5 doesn't automatically mean it requires a Destiny point to try. I'll point out Tractor 6 is a thing; it doesn't require a DP, and neither does making an opposed check (for any reason) against somebody with a Characteristic > 5.

Prodigious size alone makes it hard to lift , Sil 4 objects are 4 difficulty anything larger than sil 5 is actually impossible and needs the spending of a destiny point to attempt.

Lifting a Sil4 object is easy: you need 65XP, 2 pips, and no difficulty check.

I should have said throw. However your probably not going to kill a vehicle by dropping it.

Actually, you probably would if physics were followed. I've seen the results of a Stryker driving out on an unfinished overpass. Fall was about 20 feet/6 meters (Short range by this game's standards), and it destroyed the vehicle and killed or injured most of the crew.

Well yes certainly an opposed check with someone with 7 brawn is quite difficult you are still allowed to do it, however the rules do state their being an impossible difficulty that is past formidable which can be set by the GM, it is reasonable to assume throwing a Star Destroyer be Impossible.

Now there are collision rules in the CRB, they do say that big enough objects take no damage from small things hitting them. Now you could say that a fall for a vehicle from extreme personal range is more like it falling within short planetary and it won't take damage due to collision rules and saying that this counts as a small collision because of this vehicles prodigious size. However the GM is ultimately the arbiter you want them to take three rounds to flip an AT-AT upside down then tell them that, you seem to underestimate the true power a GM wields over their players. A GM'd word is law on his/her table, players can change his/her mind and should be encouraged to express their positions but at the end of the day a GM's word is final on his/her table of course.

Prodigious size alone makes it hard to lift , Sil 4 objects are 4 difficulty anything larger than sil 5 is actually impossible and needs the spending of a destiny point to attempt.

Lifting a Sil4 object is easy: you need 65XP, 2 pips, and no difficulty check.

I should have said throw. However your probably not going to kill a vehicle by dropping it.

Actually, you probably would if physics were followed. I've seen the results of a Stryker driving out on an unfinished overpass. Fall was about 20 feet/6 meters (Short range by this game's standards), and it destroyed the vehicle and killed or injured most of the crew.

Physics and Star Wars do not like each other just Ask Neil Degrasse Tyson about ANH and he will tell you the only thing they got right is that in order for life to exist on Tatooine it would require that it's binary star system have its stars close together which it does.

Now that doesn't mean you can't apply physics to your game, I just won't cause I feel Star Wars throws it out the window anyway so it's not in my GM's toolbox for this specific game, other more realistic RPG's sure but this isn't really the place to say Physics is the be all end all.