I've been playing RPGs for over 30 years and I have a small rep as a min / max player

however I've only just started this system, I'm playing with a group that has being playing for years, so getting loads of support from them, with these characters about 70 exp in

i'm loving the system.

We had a hole in the group of face, so I ended up going F&D Makashi Dualist which I'm really enjoying

now I'm not min max on this character, I'm enjoying the system and character I'm playing that I'm letting him naturally develope, however I've got certain things that I've planned for him to get, but how he gets there is quite flexible

One issue I've hit however is ranged defence, and indeed the defence stat in general

whilst I'm not min max this guy I'm also not going to waste exp as there are so many things I want to do

what confuses the hell out of me are how items and talents interact to create your stats

For example the Diplomat talent gives +1 ranged defence, but reading through the forums I've seen multiple comments that you can only get defence from one source

I was planning to offhand a guard shoto but if the two sources don't work together - no point

i then look at the armours - some of these give defence but then this would stack with the ancient sword I'm using or for example Defensive Training?

speaking of DT it is in a spot where I have to get it, so the fact that it doesn't stack means a waste of exp - that's poor

so help a newbie - how does this all work?

Sighs...Defense is...odd. It is probably the most frequently debated, analyzed, criticized part of the mechanics, on par with "The Morality System Sucks" and "Space Combat is Frickin Deadly!"

The Devs themselves have even said they are looking into possibly tweaking the rules. So, take anything anyone says in this with a big grain of salt, because it's not the most concrete topic. And I'm probably one of the worst to try and chime in on this, as I am allergic to rules, and tend to gloss over them at best, so some of what I'm about to say could simply be wrong, bare that in mind. Per the rules, yes, you only get Def from 1 source. So, if you have say, a weapon that gives you 1 Defense Ranged, and armor that does the same, you don't have 2 Defense Ranged. Which makes no freaking sense to me, but I didn't design the system. This was done, in an effort to keep the dice pools small, and facilitate a fast paced game. If Defense stacked, you'd run into the problem of players having 3+ defense on stuff, and thus every attack against them will be this giant pile that you have to sift through each time you want to shoot his PC. Which slows things down. It also means you have to do math. Everyone has to remember "Oh that's right, it's 2 Defense, not 1, since he's got this thing now. Crap, I forgot to add that extra dice the last time." Etc etc. Which we all know, while a minor issue, can be frustrating over time.

If I were you, I would try and focus on soak if possible. Or talents that simply apply setback dice to enemy attacks against you. Not necessarily the actual Defense trait itself.

Oh! One other thing that I just remembered, one exception to that, is if a talent says "+1 Defense" it's generally agreed that this is one of the exceptions to the normal stacking rule, as the wording specifies PLUS. Which means it's added on top of whatever Def you might already have. IIRC, this was confirmed a few times by the devs on podcasts, when the question came up. So you might still want to pick up that +1 Defense item, if you are buying into a combat tree that includes +1 Defense talents. That's probably the only scenario that I would say it's a good and viable strategy to focus on Defense.

*EDIT* removed a few plus signs in my first paragraph, as I realized they would make the discussion confusing.

The problem isn't really keeping the size of the dice pools low, it's that with so few dice, each setback skews the results significantly. Early on in a PC's life this can have a huge effect, but later on it's not as noticeable, because presumably the PCs are facing better adversaries who won't be as affected by 1 more setback.

Personally I'd allow cover to stack with anything, always. This one bugs me most, because it so blatantly steals from the verisimilitude of the scene. (It does, however, explain why clone troopers and storm troopers rarely take cover... ) As the characters progress I might allow further stacking, reflecting their additional prowess. To that end I'd probably limit the availability of certain items, or simply tell the player "that Shoto isn't going to be very effective just now, you might invest your money/XP elsewhere". Later, when the PCs have hit 400+ XP (or whatever) when I'm ramping up the adversaries I might tell the player "that Shoto you wanted? Go for it..."

All this is from a GM perspective, so you might want to have a conversation with your GM about it.

Yeah - the language here can be tough to sort out. Two items that have 1 Defense do not stack... but if an item or talent says +1 Defense, it would stack..

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

The problem isn't really keeping the size of the dice pools low, it's that with so few dice, each setback skews the results significantly. Early on in a PC's life this can have a huge effect, but later on it's not as noticeable, because presumably the PCs are facing better adversaries who won't be as affected by 1 more setback.

True, but I do recall hearing one of the devs saying one of the reasons was to help keep combat streamlined and fast. And the more dice you stack on, the slower combat gets. It's not the only reason sure, but it was one voiced by the creators, so I put at least some weight behind it

Thanks folks - so the key is if it says 'gives' then it's a static point - if it says + then it adds to whichever the highest static defence is

1 minute ago, Random Bystander said:

Thanks folks - so the key is if it says 'gives' then it's a static point - if it says + then it adds to whichever the highest static defence is

Pretty much yeah. So for the most part, unless you are in a spec tree that gives +1 Defense, it's not really an easy trait to raise beyond 1-2, no matter how much gear you buy. Which is one reason why I suggested not focusing on it. Simply because it's got a very low cap, one that you can pretty much hit as a starting character. Not really a lot of advancement for most people. There are other methods by which to make yourself harder to take down, either via the Wound/Soak/Brawn method, of just being a bigger slab of beef that doesn't drop easily. To the talents that apply negative dice to incoming attacks (which is basically exactly what Defense does anyway, just the talents stack), making you harder to hit in the first place.

remember also to read the erata

16 minutes ago, syrath said:

remember also to read the erata

Oh I did, that's why I ended up asking this as the devs answer confuses me - the logic doesn't match what I've come across in other games - though I'm sure it's for the right reasons

The big issue comes with some confusing and unexplained flip-flopping. If you read the errata, then it does provide some degree of stacking, while the developer question basically says the opposite, with no stacking from multiple sources, and then they said they were revising defense rules.

And that was easily over a year ago now, I don't even remember.

Scratch that, found the email. I sent the question in January 2016, so almost a year and a half.

22 minutes ago, Blackbird888 said:

Scratch that, found the email. I sent the question in January 2016, so almost a year and a half.

Yes , answered but never officially errata'd so I still go with the errata rule which allows the defensive quality to stack with armor or cover. I do not allow different levels of defensive to stack though, so two vibroswords both give you defensive , you have defensive 1 twice, not defensive 2, and since you cannot stack effects you would add 1 black die for melee defense which would stack with armor defense (but not cover, im throwing this in as a red herring anyway as its ranged defense)

So essentially I run with if it gives defense X you use the highest, but if it adds then you add but being careful not to stack the same abilities for weapons (ranked talents of course can add more, but you dont get ranked , only rated weapon qualities)

5 hours ago, syrath said:

Yes , answered but never officially errata'd so I still go with the errata rule which allows the defensive quality to stack with armor or cover. I do not allow different levels of defensive to stack though, so two vibroswords both give you defensive , you have defensive 1 twice, not defensive 2, and since you cannot stack effects you would add 1 black die for melee defense which would stack with armor defense (but not cover, im throwing this in as a red herring anyway as its ranged defense)

So essentially I run with if it gives defense X you use the highest, but if it adds then you add but being careful not to stack the same abilities for weapons (ranked talents of course can add more, but you dont get ranked , only rated weapon qualities)

That's in line with D&D 3.5 & Saga, if I recall correctly, where bonuses from different sources and "types" would stack, but if you had more than one item that provided the same type of bonus you only received the benefit from the biggest one.

It would be good to talk to your group about what they are doing. When my group started playing we had assumed to tallied up your Defense to determine your base number then added melee defense or ranged defense to that as the situation required. After the actual rules came to our attention, we had a very what the splattered tomatos moment that may have boiled a little too much.

In the end what we decided on was to respect the three groups, Defense, Melee Defense, Ranged Defense, but we allow stacking within those groups using two rules, first each group you can only claim a single piece of gear, two like starship combat you can only have a max of 4 defense dice in an a group. Example using the makashi duelist, If you had a Lorrdian Pike lightsaber, defensive 1 pike, defensive 1 lorrdian gemstone and modded it for defensive 2 and then had the makashi duelist talent Defensive training to add defensive 1 to your weapon, all these would stack for melee defense 4 putting you to the cap, so you wouldn't at this point benefit from additional sources.

Also we decided to treat things like actual cover (not the maneuver) as being an environment modifier since its not really part of the character. For reference to us, the 1 or 2 cover dice just represent something being in the way, while the take cover maneuver still gives +1 ranged defense and represents you actively using the cover, even if the available cover doesn't normally grant you cover, pushing into a door frame, diving for a small crevice or pile of luggage.

I've found that the best way to think about the reason why Armor and Cover don't stack Defense is that Armor allows your PC to not have to use Cover. They don't have to use a Maneuver to get to Cover, aren't effected by losing it, and are at an advantage when little or no Cover is available. Basically in FFGSW Armor gives you more mobility on the battlefield by removing the need for Cover that unarmored PCs have.

Mechanically it comes down to a problem of scale and granularity. FFGSW just doesn't have enough options when it comes to adding modifiers with the dice system used. Unlike other systems that can add modifiers in very small steps you really only have two options to work with when adding to physical Defense: Difficulty and Setback dice. You do use Challenge dice for some abilities but it's kinda hard to justify a potential Despair for stacking Armor and Cover. And because the granularity of the system makes each additional die mean a lot, adding one has a larger effect than say a +1 to AC in D&D. Since there are so few options the designers probably used something similar to what I wrote above to justify and keep from having Defense scale up too quickly.

Additionally the game is supposed to let you play PCs like those we see in the films who don't really wear armor and not have them outclassed by players who's PCs do wear armor. I actually think having Cover and Armor not stack, along with all the potential other ways to gain Defense built into the system, is an elegant solution to this problem.

1 hour ago, FuriousGreg said:

Additionally the game is supposed to let you play PCs like those we see in the films who don't really wear armor and not have them outclassed by players who's PCs do wear armor. I actually think having Cover and Armor not stack, along with all the potential other ways to gain Defense built into the system, is an elegant solution to this problem.

The problem is that the game is inconsistent. While I can understand where you are coming from, I don't see any movie characters using laser sights yet we allow accurate to stack with aiming. In fact there's no limit to how many boost dice you can get from aiming and accuracy and any other number of factors. But bonuses to defense increase the dice pool to much or it's not realistic . I just find the "reasons" to be a thinly veiled excuse for not admitting that they could have done those parts of the rules better.

It's important not to confuse Black Dice and Defense.

Many environments provide black dice, but don't provide defense.

Cover adds RDef.
Concealment merely adds black dice.
(p. 213)

The prohibition on stacking as written is between Melee Defense(MDef) vs Ranged Defense (RDef), and potentially, vehicle shields.

EG: Freg is in an open topped XP-38 fitted with a shield for 1 def. He's wearing armor with 1 def, and has talents granting two melee defense, for RDef 1, MDef 3. A stormtrooper is shooting. He can't use the MDef, as it's ranged combat. He can claim 1 def from his armor, and 1 from the cover of being butt in seat (as cover adds one to defense), or he can use the vehicle's 1 Def shield, but he can't add his RDef to the vehicle's shield. And it wouldn't make sense to add cover to the vehicle defense either - as the vehicle IS the cover. So Freg picks his personal RDef, modified by cover.

Later, Freg moves the speeder into a bunker worth +2 Def. Now, the speeder's def is 3, his own is 3, as he's in the bunker, and while still butt-in-seat, the cover from the speeder isn't going to improve that from the bunker, so his personal RDef is 1 from armor, 2 from bunker, 0 from vehicle-as-cover. His MDef, should someone charge the bunker, is 5; his 1 from armor, 2 from talent plus 2 from the bunker, none from the vehicle. So, he either takes the 3 for the vehicle+cover, or 3 from armor+cover, or 5 when people charge him while there...

On 5/19/2017 at 3:25 AM, Ahrimon said:

The problem is that the game is inconsistent. While I can understand where you are coming from, I don't see any movie characters using laser sights yet we allow accurate to stack with aiming. In fact there's no limit to how many boost dice you can get from aiming and accuracy and any other number of factors. But bonuses to defense increase the dice pool to much or it's not realistic . I just find the "reasons" to be a thinly veiled excuse for not admitting that they could have done those parts of the rules better.

I get this, the mechanics are a bit inconsistent which is something I've groused about before but the game is designed as heroic, cinematic, realism as opposed to simulation-ist. Your character is supposed to win but by the skin of their teeth so keeping the danger level high is what gives the game some tension. If you've been playing it for a while you will find it's easy for a PC to go down but actually pretty hard for that PC to die and if you bump up Defense too much you'll even lose that bit of tension. So while I'm in agreement that a lot of the rules could have been written better, clearer, and more consistent I don't actually run into too many problems in actual play.

Hot Button Topics GO....as far as I can tell the point to defense is that it makes you hard to BE hit. Thus cover should work with armor or weapon defense as its essentially helping block shots, at least that's MY thinking on it.

Whereas Armor with Defense 1 or 2 does not stack with a weapon that has Defense 1 or 2. Even 2 weapons with Defense 1 or 2 should not stack unless one of them has +1 or 2 Defense.

Basically take the highest SET Defense (Defense X), add any (+) Defense then add cover (if any) and that's it.

Really the Devs need to get their heads together and figure this out with finality soon....the question has been unanswered for far too long...

Well I've submitted a rules question so if I do get anything back I'll let you know

2 hours ago, GandofGand said:

Hot Button Topics GO....as far as I can tell the point to defense is that it makes you hard to BE hit. Thus cover should work with armor or weapon defense as its essentially helping block shots, at least that's MY thinking on it.

Whereas Armor with Defense 1 or 2 does not stack with a weapon that has Defense 1 or 2. Even 2 weapons with Defense 1 or 2 should not stack unless one of them has +1 or 2 Defense.

Basically take the highest SET Defense (Defense X), add any (+) Defense then add cover (if any) and that's it.

Really the Devs need to get their heads together and figure this out with finality soon....the question has been unanswered for far too long...

Well, technically, armor shouldn't get a Defense bonus at all. It should only get the Soak bonus. As someone who has worn armor in real life, Armor does not prevent you from being hit at all, It is actually easier to hit someone wearing armor because armor restricts movement and slows you down. All armor does is absorb damage after being hit .

3 hours ago, GandofGand said:

Hot Button Topics GO....as far as I can tell the point to defense is that it makes you hard to BE hit.

10 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, technically, armor shouldn't get a Defense bonus at all. It should only get the Soak bonus. As someone who has worn armor in real life, Armor does not prevent you from being hit at all, It is actually easier to hit someone wearing armor because armor restricts movement and slows you down. All armor does is absorb damage after being hit .

I think defense is supposed to be a bit of both. Defense is whatever prevents an attack from succeeding, whether it be stopping an attack dead, directing it away, preventing the attacker from getting a clear shot, or avoiding being hit entirely.

3 minutes ago, Blackbird888 said:

I think defense is supposed to be a bit of both. Defense is whatever prevents an attack from succeeding, whether it be stopping an attack dead, directing it away, preventing the attacker from getting a clear shot, or avoiding being hit entirely.

That's debatable, but my point stands. There is a reason why most game systems (aside from D20) use a straight stopping power (soak) system for armor, often with an encumbrance penalty to dexterity instead of an armor defense bonus. And even D20 used a damage reduction system in the RCRB. When WotC switched back to an "Armor Class" style defense bonus system for SAGA Ed, that was one of the things that made me boycott that system. The good thing about this system is that armor does primarily provide a Soak bonus more so than any "Defense" bonus. And, IMO, I'd scrap the Defense Bonus for armor all together.

53 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, technically, armor shouldn't get a Defense bonus at all. It should only get the Soak bonus. As someone who has worn armor in real life, Armor does not prevent you from being hit at all, It is actually easier to hit someone wearing armor because armor restricts movement and slows you down. All armor does is absorb damage after being hit .

This assumes the only time you are hit is when you take damage. But a lot of game systems, this one included, illustrate that the actual results of the dice roll can be a lot of stuff. Just because I "miss" on an attack, doesn't mean I didn't ever hit my target in our flurry of attacks. It just means none of them actually amounted to anything. Some would say "Well that's just soak, or damage reduction" if we're talking about D&D, but other schools of thought say it's kind of both. That if the armor doesn't actually provide soak or damage reduction (which most of them don't in game design)

So it's not unreasonable, based on the way armor is usually designed in games, to say that it's not preventing you from being hit so much, it's just making the hits you are taking, far less likely to actually hurt you. The idea of a "hit" being when your body actually takes damage.

There are certainly armors that use shape to deflect blows, which it could be argued provide defence. And shields make sense if they deflect rather than absorb hits. Could have armor that is ablative, and degrades whilst providing soak. Otherwise, just providing soak makes sense.

If anything, I think the biggest issue is not what the armor provides, but the lack if information it provides on why.

(Neglecting the confusion on stacking, of course)