14 hours ago, syrath said:

One thing I was also unsure of ,but cannot find was the stacking of the setback dice. If I'm remembering correctly you can only select options like adding setback or a boost once. So if you want to pass 2 boost to someone the only way of doing it is to pay 1 adv for giving the next person a boost then spending 2 advantage for giving that specific person a boost.

That was the case in Edge of the Empire, if you interpreted the phrase on table 6-2, "Recover 1 strain (this option may be selected more than once)" as definitively disallowing any of the other options from being selected more than once. Most people did, but in my experience it was often done in a gamist way, not in a narrative-concerned way: "No, you can't add 2 Boost dice, because the rules don't say you can, so pick a different option or lose your Advantage."

Note that this verbiage was removed from the same table in Force and Destiny—IMO the phrase at the bottom of p211, "Any option that the players and GM agree upon can be viable," should be enough. (I'm not entirely sure whether the Table 6-2 edit was intentional, mind you!)

I will generally follow the sentiment that you shouldn't activate most of those "Result Options" in Table 6-2 more than once per check, but my concerns are based in the narrative, and thus my rulings on the matter are flexible. I want the results from my players to be interesting and memorable. "I'll throw a 1 Boost die to Karen and 1 to Trevor as well" is not grounded in the narrative whatsoever, and so I'll ask my players, "What has resulted from your skill check that makes you think Karen and Trevor should get Boost dice?" If they can give me a good reason in the narrative, I might give Karen and Trevor better than a single Boost die each. But if they can't, and they narrate a scene that doesn't really justify any Boost dice being given, I might say something like, "it sounds like your character's efforts are going completely toward self-preservation. Why not give yourself a +1 Ranged Defense rating as you hunker down? That will stack with your cover, making you better protected."

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

That was the case in Edge of the Empire, if you interpreted the phrase on table 6-2, "Recover 1 strain (this option may be selected more than once)" as definitively disallowing any of the other options from being selected more than once. Most people did, but in my experience it was often done in a gamist way, not in a narrative-concerned way: "No, you can't add 2 Boost dice, because the rules don't say you can, so pick a different option or lose your Advantage."

Note that this verbiage was removed from the same table in Force and Destiny—IMO the phrase at the bottom of p211, "Any option that the players and GM agree upon can be viable," should be enough. (I'm not entirely sure whether the Table 6-2 edit was intentional, mind you!)

I will generally follow the sentiment that you shouldn't activate most of those "Result Options" in Table 6-2 more than once per check, but my concerns are based in the narrative, and thus my rulings on the matter are flexible. I want the results from my players to be interesting and memorable. "I'll throw a 1 Boost die to Karen and 1 to Trevor as well" is not grounded in the narrative whatsoever, and so I'll ask my players, "What has resulted from your skill check that makes you think Karen and Trevor should get Boost dice?" If they can give me a good reason in the narrative, I might give Karen and Trevor better than a single Boost die each. But if they can't, and they narrate a scene that doesn't really justify any Boost dice being given, I might say something like, "it sounds like your character's efforts are going completely toward self-preservation. Why not give yourself a +1 Ranged Defense rating as you hunker down? That will stack with your cover, making you better protected."

To be honest it may be something I picked up from listening to order 66 , however if Im not mistaken it was from one of the dev answered questions that it wasnt intended to throw dice upon dice , it also doesnt make sense to use 4 advantage to pass 4 boost to the next PC check, for one it results in large dice pools (which seems to be the reasoning behind the defence debacle) and doesnt fit the narrative either. Im with you , I started , with the current group Im Gming to ask them to tell me what they think their advantage did and then get them to leave it to me to justify how that is mechanically translated, however at the moment to make it a bit easier for a new player (not just to the system but to RPGs in general) Im letting them choose an option, and occasionally throwing in a request for more detail from the new player.

This was very cool and I would like to put my hand up to help run a league of some sort. I am unsure exactly how to do it but perhaps a single thread for organising duals with separate threads for the actual encounters.

With players co-GMing I think a third forum member can easily be a tie breaker but not have to adjudicate every role. Standard rules would be set up for a season and perhaps with a series of round Robbins before some finals in a knockout format.

Does anyone have ideas or input?

I would think that at least one GM per duel would be helpful, so as to set the scene, give character builds a once-over, and keep things moving.

In a PvP setting, I find that Threat and Despair could easily be spent by other players without much need for GM rulings, just like Advantage and Triumph; but it would be helpful to have a GM for the times when you have a narrative idea that needs some mechanical arbitration.

That's a good point, and sort of where I was going with the referee idea. Slowing down the posts to wait for a third person is annoying so the more the players can agree on the better, but it's definitely important to have that extra person.

I was thinking a list of scenarios would be a good idea, perhaps 5 or 10 to start, nice and simple with a paragraph description and 1 or 2 mechanical effects such as weather etc. Then a simple random roll to decide the Arena ensures no character is purpose built for that arena.

As an example:

Darkend alley:

A long alley stretches away into the distance between tall buildings. N othing has driven down here for some time with all these c rates, bins and boxes littering the ground. Above you shuttered windows and fire escapes are the only details adorning these bland utilitarian structures.

Features:

1. Traversing the ground is considered difficult terrain due to the mess.

2. Add 2 Setback dice to checks requiring vision at Long range, add 3 Setback when it's Extreme range.

3. The buildings extend vertically to Extreme range from the ground.

4. Leaping from one side of the alley to the other is Short range.

This sounds awesome. The scenarios might be extended to cover things like chases and races, too, to allow tests of various Racer/Operator/Pilot/etc. builds.

2v2 would be cool, too, to try out various character combos, like having a DPS character and a tank with some Bodyguard or whatever.

That reminds me of something; have you seen GM Jedi-Scoundrel's environmental set pieces? It's a document with basically just environment descriptions and a list of ways to spend Threat and such. That could be a real help; I always have a printed version on hand for when my play group goes somewhere unexpected, but we could use it to help build these arenas.

I'll see if I can dig it up...I originally found it over on the d20radio forums.

9 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

That reminds me of something; have you seen GM Jedi-Scoundrel's environmental set pieces? It's a document with basically just environment descriptions and a list of ways to spend Threat and such. That could be a real help; I always have a printed version on hand for when my play group goes somewhere unexpected, but we could use it to help build these arenas.

I'll see if I can dig it up...I originally found it over on the d20radio forums.

I'd love to see this!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pwbzr6clnnots10/EotE - Environmental Set Pieces v1.9.pdf?dl=0

Boom. The most recent version is a compilation. Let me know what you think! Useful?

Saving this!

50 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pwbzr6clnnots10/EotE - Environmental Set Pieces v1.9.pdf?dl=0

Boom. The most recent version is a compilation. Let me know what you think! Useful?

I can already tell that this will be incredibly useful for my own GMing. It also seems ideal for the proposed lightsaber league.

Another concern is the double-knight level rewards and how they might interact with Morality.

At 300 earned XP, I would have had some significant time to increase or decrease my Morality. I would suggest a free 21 Morality rating increase/decrease on top of usual rewards for a 300-earned-XP duel. That way if someone wanted to go full Dark Side or full Light Side Paragon (with all the benefits from doing so), they have that option.

And of course, a powerful dark sider would get to convert a Destiny Point to the dark side for his use, just as a light side paragon would normally be able to convert a DP to the light side.

5 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pwbzr6clnnots10/EotE - Environmental Set Pieces v1.9.pdf?dl=0

Boom. The most recent version is a compilation. Let me know what you think! Useful?

I had forgotten about these! Very useful. Many make excellent environments for duels, we probably just need to go through the full list and identify appropriate ones. Then the inappropriate we can modify to make appropriate or simply make up some extras if it's required. I'll try to find time today. Great find Away.

Some things that will need to be determined for the league:

--Lightsaber combat only? Does that mean no "direct damage" Force powers?

--Are there any items that should be disallowed? (Talisman of Iron Fists?)

2 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Some things that will need to be determined for the league:

--Lightsaber combat only? Does that mean no "direct damage" Force powers?

--Are there any items that should be disallowed? (Talisman of Iron Fists?)

As an eager bystander to all this, why would it be lightsabers only? Why not create a league where you can pit various gun builds against each other, or non-Jedi melee builds, or Jedi vs. Gadgeteers, etc.? I'd err on the side of inclusion rather than making this a lightsaber club. (Of course, I'm not doing the legwork...

The difficulty with allowing gun builds is that, more than in the case of lightsabers, there is one type of build that arguably dominates other options (autofire-focused builds). That one issue aside, I agree that an all-inclusive combat league might be more fun.

I do think it helps to not have a complete free-for-all, and to know what rough kind of character you'll be facing. I think the knowledge that we'd each be facing a saber-wielding enemy made it possible for us to design our characters strategically in a way that would be almost impossible if we were facing an unknown character from any spec whatsoever.

12 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Some things that will need to be determined for the league:

--Lightsaber combat only? Does that mean no "direct damage" Force powers?

--Are there any items that should be disallowed? (Talisman of Iron Fists?)

I would prefer gentleman's agreements on the matter. Artifacts and other items are largely cost-prohibitive—and if you can afford to buy them, then so can your opponent!

Perhaps seasonal changes are in order. Each season of competition has a specific set of rules. I do agree Autofire could easily get out of hand with 1 on 1 combat, although it would be interesting to see a Jedi vs Autofire challenge, with enough Reflect and improved Saber Throw I think the Jedi does have a chance.

3 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

The difficulty with allowing gun builds is that, more than in the case of lightsabers, there is one type of build that arguably dominates other options (autofire-focused builds). That one issue aside, I agree that an all-inclusive combat league might be more fun.

I do think it helps to not have a complete free-for-all, and to know what rough kind of character you'll be facing. I think the knowledge that we'd each be facing a saber-wielding enemy made it possible for us to design our characters strategically in a way that would be almost impossible if we were facing an unknown character from any spec whatsoever.

See, now, I like the idea of a free-for-all but I agree, it does help to have a rough idea of the kind of fight you're getting into.

But overall an open set of rules is more interesting. It's actually why I suggested a round robin system for the qualifiers. That way a single mismatch won't exclude an otherwise excellent build.

1 minute ago, Richardbuxton said:

Perhaps seasonal changes are in order. Each season of competition has a specific set of rules. I do agree Autofire could easily get out of hand with 1 on 1 combat, although it would be interesting to see a Jedi vs Autofire challenge, with enough Reflect and improved Saber Throw I think the Jedi does have a chance.

Yeah!

I have an idea for a Soresu Defender that I'd love to test against a heavy rifle build

I have 2 things I want to try, an Executioner Hermit with a bonded mount, using Essential Kill and a Vibrospear! Second is I want to see how far a Makashi Finish can go with a Double Saber that Crits on a 1.

16 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

The difficulty with allowing gun builds is that, more than in the case of lightsabers, there is one type of build that arguably dominates other options (autofire-focused builds). That one issue aside, I agree that an all-inclusive combat league might be more fun.

I do think it helps to not have a complete free-for-all, and to know what rough kind of character you'll be facing. I think the knowledge that we'd each be facing a saber-wielding enemy made it possible for us to design our characters strategically in a way that would be almost impossible if we were facing an unknown character from any spec whatsoever.

I think that's a really good point. A major part of what made the duel so much fun is that the participants knew approximately what type of opponent they were facing. I think general guidelines like this (possibly agreed upon by the participants beforehand?) would be a great way to handle this. E.g., "lightsaber user vs. gun user" or "lightsaber and force user vs. melee fighter".

We could do a hunger games like thing.

That would be complicated though