Specifically, as a GM, do you adjust the difficulty of Force Power checks made on an ally? I ask because as far as I recall, the rules state that Force Power checks on Player Characters must always be Opposed checks. I've run into the situation where the group's Force User is trying to heal an ally but fails on the Discipline check against their ally, when both players wanted the healing to happen.

So do you adjust the difficulty if both players agree about the power taking place? If so, why?

Do you choose not to adjust the difficulty and leave things as the rules state? Why exactly?

13 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Specifically, as a GM, do you adjust the difficulty of Force Power checks made on an ally? I ask because as far as I recall, the rules state that Force Power checks on Player Characters must always be Opposed checks. I've run into the situation where the group's Force User is trying to heal an ally but fails on the Discipline check against their ally, when both players wanted the healing to happen.

So do you adjust the difficulty if both players agree about the power taking place? If so, why?

Do you choose not to adjust the difficulty and leave things as the rules state? Why exactly?

I haven't read the Force power rules so I can't speak to what RAW says, but if I was running the game I'd make a Heal roll on an PC either a Simple check like initiative, or give it a standard difficulty of 1 or 2 purples. Logically, Discipline should only be used when the target is actually trying to resist.

I think the general idea, and a line that was omitted by accident in the rules, is "willing." The sidebar speaking about making Force powers opposed checks primarily speaks from "PC using it on NPCs" perspective, with a throwaway bit about it always being opposed when used on PCs. I think this should be submitted as a developer question, but I suspect the answer might be similar to as follows:

As long as the character (PC or otherwise) is not opposed to the power being used on them, such as being healed, then it does not need to be an opposed check. Opposed checks imply that the two or more characters are actively fighting the effects or influence of another character's Force power. So as long as the characters are willing, it does not need to be an opposed check.

I submitted the question to the developers just to be sure. I was just curious how other GM's rule it as of now.

In my game, if the target is willing, then it’s not an Opposed check. In that case, you fall back to the standard difficulty as would be otherwise be appropriate.

But I’ll be curious to see what the Devs have to say.

16 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Specifically, as a GM, do you adjust the difficulty of Force Power checks made on an ally? I ask because as far as I recall, the rules state that Force Power checks on Player Characters must always be Opposed checks. I've run into the situation where the group's Force User is trying to heal an ally but fails on the Discipline check against their ally, when both players wanted the healing to happen.

So do you adjust the difficulty if both players agree about the power taking place? If so, why?

Do you choose not to adjust the difficulty and leave things as the rules state? Why exactly?

That's when a Force Power is being used "against" a PC. Healing someone is not using a power against them, it's for them.

Yeah, I'd agree that so long as the PC is a willing target and not resisting, then there's no need to bring in the opposed check rules, and the Force user just rolls their Force dice as normal.

3 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Yeah, I'd agree that so long as the PC is a willing target and not resisting, then there's no need to bring in the opposed check rules, and the Force user just rolls their Force dice as normal.

You can claim Negotiorum Gestio, if tey're not able to consent.

2 hours ago, Grimmerling said:

You can claim Negotiorum Gestio, if tey're not able to consent.

Had to look that phrase up...